Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Closing of evidence – Order, closing the evidence of the complainant, on the date when the accused himself was not present is not justified and accordingly, the same is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2017

Non-bailable warrant – Accused remained absent without any intimation to the trial Court that is why the trial Court forfeited his surety and issued non-bailable warrants -- Without finding any fault with the order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, looking to the peculiar facts that the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is involved and the case being u/s 138 NI Act, there is no point to put the petitioner in custody – Non-bailable warrant set-aside, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the bail bonds earlier furnished by him before the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Proclamation order u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015

Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of -- On account of absence of complainant on one occasion dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution was not justified, since, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, non-suiting the parties on technical grounds -- Present petition challenging the impugned order is maintainable and no fault can be found with the same -- Petition accepted; impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored at its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Dismissed in default -- In no way, by the absence, the complainant/appellant is to be benefitted nor there is anything on the record to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant/appellant for his absence from the proceedings – Absence of the complainant on one date in the complaint case is no ground to dismiss the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Dismissed in default – It is settled law that the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail – Order dismissing the complaint in default is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Restoration of complaint -- Rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail -- Complaint is restored at the stage from where it was dismissed by the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2016

Case fixed for accused’s appearance – Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – Dismissal in default followed by restoration application unnecessarily delays the disposal of complaint on merits than simply adjourning the case for a date – Complaint was not listed for any particular purpose, rather it was fixed for presence of accused by way of notice and presence of appellant was not necessary on that date -- Merely on that account of non-appearance, the complaint should not have been dismissed in default -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Dismissal of complaint for non-want of prosecution -- Plea of wrong noting of date appears to be genuine -- Bona fide of the complainant is established from the fact that its representative had been appearing on each and every date -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Power of Magistrate -- Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint if on any date fixed for hearing the complainant fails to appear in the Court and at the same time, if the Magistrate finds that there is some reason or that the presence of the complainant was not required, he in his discretion can adjourn the complaint -- However, the Magistrate while acting under the said proviso has to take into consideration that the powers vested therein have to be exercised in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Dismissed of complaint for want of prosecution – Case called several times but none has appeared and on that account, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution -- Cheque amount is stated to be Rs.10 lacs -- Nobody should be condemned unheard – Impugned order stands set-aside -- Complaint stands restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2015

Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Account books/bahi entries are not the instruments of advancement of loan like pronote, bonds, or Bill of exchange etc. which can legally be enforced, as recognised in the N.I. Act -- Entries in account books are only relevant u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case of Company -- Quashing of complaint -- (a) The complaint is based on a Memorandum of Understanding, which is not signed by the petitioner and is rather signed by accused No.3. The dishonoured cheques were given to the complainant at the time of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. (b) The cheque numbers of the disputed cheques are duly mentioned in the body of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by accused No.3, which show that he was the person In-charge of the Company as he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of accused No.1-Company and had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. (c) Even the cheques are not signed by the petitioner and the same are signed by accused Nos.2 and 3. (d) In the complaints, the only allegation in para 3 is that accused No.4-petitioner is In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, however, there is no document to support this version and rather in the reply filed by the complainant in High Court, nowhere reflects that the petitioner is the In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, in any manner. (e) There is nothing on record to support the complaints that the petitioner is one Director of accused No.1-Company as it is the case of the petitioner that he never remained the Director of accused No.1-Company at any stage and this fact is not disputed in the reply. Summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.03.2020

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Enquiry by Magistrate – Procedure of -- Section 202 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to complaints u/s 138 in respect of examination of witnesses on oath – Evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit -- In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Enquiry by Magistrate – Requirement of -- Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.11.2022

Leave to appeal -- Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused -- Compromise at revisional stage – Matter can be compromised at the stage of pendency of revisional proceedings before the High Court -- Conviction and sentence of the accused can be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2020

Leave to appeal -- Signatures on the cheque is not denied, yet the complainant has failed to prove any friendly relationship with the accused -- No acknowledgement has been placed on record nor in the income tax returns Mark `A’ and Mark `B’, there is any reference of loan when it is an admitted fact that the wife of attorney (complainant) had been into the business of Hire Purchase and Investment for the last 20 years -- It is permissible for the accused to point out contradictions/deficiencies in the evidence led by the prosecution and that it is not necessary for the accused to lead evidence in defence to rebut the presumption -- No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Financial capacity – During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Financial capacity – It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence -- Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Jurisdiction of Appellate Court -- Ordinarily, the Appellate Court will not be upsetting the judgment of acquittal, if the view taken by Trial Court is one of the possible views of matter and unless the Appellate Court arrives at a clear finding that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, i.e., not supported by evidence on record or contrary to what is regarded as normal or reasonable; or is wholly unsustainable in law -- Such general restrictions are essentially to remind the Appellate Court that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and a judgment of acquittal further strengthens such presumption in favour of the accused -- Same rule with same rigour cannot be applied in a matter relating to the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act, particularly where a presumption is drawn that the holder has received the cheque for the discharge, wholly or in part, of any debt or liability -- Appellate Court is certainly entitled to examine the evidence on record in order to find if preponderance indeed leans in favour of the accused.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Security cheque presented before agreed date – Held, at the time of presentation of cheque before bank, there was no legally enforcement debtor liability – Complainant had received certain amounts, which has not been mentioned in his complainant and what is balance – Offence u/s 138 is not made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.01.2019

Complainant is not aware about the business of the accused for which the alleged loan was advanced -- Complainant further testified that the amount in question was obtained from friends and relatives in order to give it to the accused for his business -- No source of income has been proved by the complainant -- DW1, Tax Assistant from Income Tax Office has proved the income tax return of the complainant, which do not contain the amount advanced as loan to the accused – Finding that cheque in question was not issued towards any debt or legal liability is based on correct appraisal of the evidence and a possible view had been adopted – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2019

DDR of lost cheque -- Nothing on record that amount was demanded back from accused -- No document to prove that complainant is doing joint business with accused – Accused produced DDR regarding loss of cheque – Trial Court acquitted the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.12.2018

No document for advance of loan case -- Complainant has not mentioned any date, month, year as to when the loan was advanced to the accused -- No receipt or security document was got executed while lending huge amounts to the accused -- Otherwise also, there are no particulars, that at which place, in whose presence the loan was advanced and what was the mode of giving the amount, whether by cheque or by cash nor there is anything that the amount was withdrawn from the bank or it was lying with the complainant at his home -- When the first complaint regarding dishonour of the cheque is already pending in the Court, then complainant will not lend such a huge amount again to the same accused -- Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.11.2018

Rebuttal of Presumption – Cheque has not been issued by the accused nor it was from his account -- Document Expert, has been examined to show that cheque- Ex.C2 was not signed by the accused -- No expert, in rebuttal, has been examined by the complainant --- Accused-respondent has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2018

Cheque amount more than liability – All the documents of the complainant pertain to alleged transactions, remaining amount of receipts comes to Rs.1,73,179/- only -- Cheque amount of Rs.2,36,290/- -- Complainant has given legal notice to pay an amount of Rs.2,36,290/- qua which there was no liability outstanding against the accused – Accused rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2018

Rebuttal of presumption -- Cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'no such account' on 09.02.2010 -- When there was no account at the time of issuance of cheque, then where is the question of issuing cheque by the accused to the complainant -- Defence raised by the accused is probable one, which is supported and corroborated by defence evidence and presumption has duly been rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2018

Vague description of loan -- Complainant has failed to explain in his complaint and the legal notice as to when and for what purpose, the amount of Rs.70,000/- was taken by the accused, specially when in the complaint neither any date, month, year nor the purpose is mentioned – Trial Court acquitted the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2018

No existing legal liability -- Accused has led sufficient evidence to prove that he is a sole proprietor of the firm M/s Pardeep Kumar and he had issued the cheque to the firm, namely, M/s Ganpati Fabrics, which is proprietorship concern of the son of the applicant – Held, trial Court has rightly held that neither the complainant has pleaded in his complaint that the accused has issued the cheque in discharge of his liability of third person with the proprietor of concern `Textile' nor there is any evidence, in support thereof -- It has come in the statement of the complainant himself that M/s Ganpati Fabrics is the proprietorship firm of his son and that the accused concern was having business dealing with the concern M/s Ganpati Fabrics -- Therefore, the version given by the accused is more probable that he has no existing legal liability towards the complainant-`Textile' – Acquittal of the accused is just and proper.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 21.09.2017

No document for advancement of loan -- Friendly loan of Rs. 20 lacs – -- Complainant has not mentioned in his complaint as to for what purpose, he had advanced such a substantial amount as loan to the accused. -- While appearing in the witness box applicant has deposed that the loan was advanced to the respondent in the presence of her father-in-law but she has not examined this witness in support of her claim. -- No other witness has been examined by her regarding the loan transaction. Applicant has also not produced on record any receipt or pronote for grant of loan to the accused. Therefore, the act and conduct of the applicant is highly improbable, as no sane person is expected to advance such a substantial amount as loan to any other person without any documentation or even receipt or acknowledgement. -- Complainant has also failed to mention the date, month and year of advancement of loan or issuance of cheque in question by the accused in her favour either in her pleadings or in her evidence. – Complainant has also not produced any document which may show her income/expenditure/ account of business income or the income tax return, which may draw an inference that she is financially well placed. -- She has not given any detail as to what business or profession she is carrying. -- Only contention, which the complainant has raised is that she has advanced a loan of Rs.20 lakhs to the accused as she had sold an industrial shed at Panchkula, but neither such sale deed nor any other relevant document has been produced on record by the complainant, which can substantiate the plea that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was collected by her after the sale of the said industrial unit situated in Panchkula. When no evidence to connect the respondent-accused with the alleged offence is available on record, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2017

Civil liability to pay -- Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Compromise at revisional stage – Revision is allowed on the basis of the compromise – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellate court as well as the trial Court set aside -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.03.2017

Capacity to advance loan -- No particulars have been given as to on which date, month or year the money was given on which this liability arose -- No security document was taken -- There was no document to show this transaction – Accused had not denied issuance of cheque, but has set up a defence that the cheque was issued to someone else as security -- Presumption has been rebutted by the accused – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2017

Capacity to advance loan -- No date has been mentioned as to when the loan was given to the accused -- There is no document on record to show these loan transactions -- There is nothing in the complaints as to when the loan was demanded back by the complainants from the accused -- There are no particulars of liability of any type in the complaints – On the other hand, the accused has raised probable defence – No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.03.2017

Complaint through attorney -- Complainant himself has not appeared in the witness box and his attorney appeared -- Ld. trial Court held that power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath on behalf of the complainant if he had witnessed the transaction or had knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused -- Attorney himself admitted in his cross-examination that “It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the present case” -- No date, month or year of the transaction had been mentioned by the complainant -- No document on record to show the transaction between the parties -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court -- Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2017

Capacity to advance loan -- Friendly loan amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- to the accused – However, there is no evidence that the complainant had the capacity to advance Rs.11,30,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the respondent is shown in the Income Tax Return – Respondent-accused stated that the appellant had misused the cheque which he gave to his (appellant) brother, this fact is duly proved by the statement of independent witness -- Except self serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of advancement of loan – Ld. Trial Court acquitted the respondent -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

No document for advancement of loan -- Court below after appreciating the evidence held that the accused was neither relative nor close friend -- It looks unnatural that the amount has been paid without any interest without getting any document executed like receipt etc. -- No security document has been taken by the complainant while advancing the loan of Rs.1,12,000/- -- Otherwise also, it also looks unnatural that on the same date the accused will issue three cheques instead of one for paying Rs.1,12,000/- -- Complainant while appearing as CW-1 in cross-examination has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as loan -- In the complaint, no date and month had been mentioned when the amount was paid -- No document on record to show the loan transaction -- Accused has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Source of money -- Death of complainant – Evidence of complainant’s wife -- Not a single document to show loan transaction -- Complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his wife appeared as CW-1 but she was not knowing anything about the loan transaction nor it had taken place in her presence -- Cheque was not given by the accused in her presence to complainant (since deceased) -- Nothing on record to show the source of income -- Signatures on the cheque are in blue ink whereas the amount, date and body of the cheque had been filled with black ink -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to prove the loan transaction – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Cheque book issued to another firm -- Cheque was returned back unpaid with the remarks “account closed” – Even if it is taken that the cheque had been drawn by the accused, it was not drawn from the account of the accused -- One of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing -- No ground to grant leave to file appeal – Application dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Cheque signed by non-account holder – Offence u/s 420 IPC -- Held, one of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing – Offence u/s 138 of NI Act is not made out – Neither the complaint has been filed u/s 420 IPC nor there is any averment in the complaint proving the ingredient of Section 420 IPC – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

No document for advance -- No document on record to show that the accused had either signed on any document after taking the advanced amount -- Accused was employee of the complainant and he left the job in March 2012, but cheque is of March 2013 i.e. after one year -- Defence taken by the accused that he was the employee and the blank cheques had been taken at the time of joining the complainant-firm is probable one -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- No merit in the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal, the same is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Legally enforceable debt -- Except self-serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of legally enforceable debt of the respondent towards appellant – No oral or documentary evidence to prove the advancement of loan – In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in accused’s favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible – Keeping in view the above, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Capacity to advance loan -- Loan/Cheque of Rs.18 lacs – Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

No document for advancement of loan -- Loan/Cheque of Rs.18 lacs – No date, month and year has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- If the amount was given for the business purposes, then it looks unnatural that there were no terms and conditions to pay the interest -- Furthermore, no receipt or security document has been obtained at the time of advancing such a huge amount -- No particulars of loan transactions have been mentioned by stating that at which place and in whose presence this amount was given -- Furthermore, there is also no particular as to when the loan was demanded back -- Accused is entitled to acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Cheque by son – In complaint no liability against accused – No evidence on record to show that accused ever stood surety or given in writing any undertaking to repay the loan of his father – Branch Manager admitted that no loan was taken by the accused – Cheque in question issued by the accused is not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt against the State – No ground to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2017

No document for advancement of loan -- Cheque amounting to Rs.5 lacs -- No date, month or years has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- Neither the place where the loan was given nor any fact has been mentioned as to in whose presence, the loan was given -- Even no security document has been taken from the accused at the time of granting loan nor receipt was taken -- No document of any type has been placed on record to show the loan transaction and withdrawal of huge amount from any bank etc. -- Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted -- No ground to grant leave to the applicant to file an appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

Post dated cheques – Stipulation in the sale deed itself shows that if the post dated cheques are not encashed in time then without the intervention of the Court, the sale deed shall be deemed to be cancelled – Thereafter compromise arrived between the parties to the effect that the post dated cheques were to be returned by the complainant to the accused, which apparently he did not return -- It was also mentioned in the sale deed that in case cheques are not encashed by the seller, he shall be entitled to 28% of the developed land – Held, post dated cheques, issued at the time of sale deed, were not for discharge of legal debt or liability -- As such, offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act is not made out.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Rebuttal of presumption -- In the reply to legal notice, the accused has specifically mentioned that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant and not Rs.4 lacs and the cheque was handed over to the complainant as security cheque – Nothing in the complaint or in the evidence as to on which date and in which month and year, what amount was given to the accused as loan -- It was necessary, specifically, when the accused is alleging that he has taken loan of Rs.10,000/- only -- One pen has been used for signing the cheque, other pen has been used for putting the date on the cheque and third pen has been used for filling the amount in words as well as in figure -- No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

No document for advancement of loan -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent/accused -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- No document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2015

Two views -- Wherever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal, deserves to be adopted by the Courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Capacity to advance loan -- No particulars were given as to when and how much amount has been given, no dates, months and years have been mentioned in the complaint -- When the complainant came into witness box, he took totally different stand by stating that the amount has been given to the accused by way of cheque of Rs.3 lacs – In statement of accounts no such entry regarding the withdrawal of sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of cheque has been specifically pointed out by the complainant -- Complainant also failed to prove source of such a huge amount -- Statement of complainant is contradictory to the version given in the complaint -- Complainant is working as commission agent, he has not produced on record his account books to show entry regarding advancement of loan to the accused -- Rather, in cross-examination, he has stated that he has not reflected the said amount in books of account -- Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been duly rebutted by the accused – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- No ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Capacity to advance loan -- When the loan was given, it was not shown in the income tax return nor in any other document -- Furthermore, the complainant was not even having the mobile number or any other number of the accused to show that he has friendly relations with the accused and it creates doubt -- Moreover, no security document has been taken at the time of lending the loan -- No source of huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been disclosed by the complainant -- It looks doubtful that complainant will lend such an huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- without getting executed any document -- No document is there regarding advancement of any other earlier loan -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act has been rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Two views -- Wherever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal, deserves to be adopted by the Courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

No document for advancement of loan -- Cheque not supported by pronote or receipt – Nothing on record to show that the applicant/complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent -- No date, month or year was mentioned that when the accused borrowed the money -- It is highly improbable that applicant advanced an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused without any receipt or pronote -- There is no document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Second view -- If a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible. C. Antony’s case 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

No document to substantiate claim -- Transaction pertains to the year 2002, however the cheque in question is dated 15.09.2008 – A complaint was also made to the police station with regard to non-return of cheque after clearance of debt -- Once the accused himself moved a complaint against the applicant/ complainant then the story of issuance of cheque is not sustainable -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the applicant – Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2015

No document for advancement of loan -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

No document for advancement of loan -- Loan of 32 lacs without any receipt or pronote – Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent from his bank account or from any other source -- In the absence of any document that the applicant had the alleged amount with him, it is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.32 lacs to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record – Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2015

Denial of signature – Expert evidence -- Once the accused did not accept his signatures on the cheque, complainant did not make any effort to get the signature of the accused proved by examining any handwriting and fingerprint expert, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial court committed no error of law, while passing the acquittal order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Liability of accused -- Total loan amount was Rs.10,62,280/- -- Out of this loan amount, accused had paid Rs.10,50,030.82/- -- In such a situation, there was no scope for issuing the cheque in question for an amount of Rs.3 lacs by the borrower, in favour of the complainant -- Complainant failed to justify the liability of the accused, if any, after the termination of the loan agreement – Accused rightly acquitted -- Since the Trial court has arrived at a judicious conclusion, taking one of the possible views, the impugned order deserves to be upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Termination of loan agreement – Loaned vehicle was repossessed and sold by the complainant, whereas the alleged cheque in question was of date thereafter -- Once the vehicle was repossessed and sold, the agreement stood terminated and there was no occasion for the accused to issue the cheque in question -- Acquittal order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Termination of loan agreement – Once account of the accused stood closed much earlier, i.e. on 5.4.2005, there was no occasion for the accused to issue the alleged cheque in favour of the complainant as late as on 18.7.2005 – Ld. Trial court committed no error of law, while passing the acquittal order and the same deserves to be upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Two views – Whenever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal is to be adopted by the courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Two views – It is the cardinal principle of law that whenever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal is to be adopted by the courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Settlement of dispute -- Cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,30,000/- has already been paid to complainant -- Complainant has admitted the said fact -- There remains no dispute between the parties, High Court is left with no other option but to allow the petition -- Orders of conviction and sentence passed by the both the Courts below are set-aside -- Petitioners have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2015

Money Lending License -- Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Authenticity of Bills -- In view of discrepancy in statements of witnesses regarding authenticity of Bill for which the alleged cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant for discharge of its debt; being under a cloud – Statement that cheques might have been issued against previous transaction, apparently lends credence to the defence of the accused that the blank cheque was collected by the complainant company as security at the time of starting the business -- Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014

Non-participation in day to day business of the company – No mention that accused was in-charge of the respondent-Company and was responsible for the business and affairs of the company -- Cheque has been issued by other accused, who had already died -- No averment in the complaint that accused was also responsible for the day to day business of the Company -- Director can only be held as liable if he is actively doing and taking part in the business of the company and this fact is to be specifically pleaded in the complaint – Accused has been rightly acquitted by the Court below.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Petitioner/ complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents -- No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence -- Purpose of trial is to elicit truth -- Trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution -- Petitioner permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Section 311 can be exercised at any stage of the trial -- Only test prescribed as to whether such evidence which is being sought to be produced by resorting to Section 311 of the Code is essential to the just decision of the case or not – Trial Court has not given any finding as such – Impugned order set aside, Trial Court directed to decide the application afresh by testing the application on the touchstone of 'whether the evidence sought to be produced is essential for the just decision of the case or not'.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 29.08.2022 Pronounced on: 16.09.2022

Expert-examination – Application for additional evidence, which was filed for examination of a Hand-writing Expert to compare the writing on the body of the cheque, which has been asserted by the petitioner to have not been written by him does not have any material significance especially when the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 12.01.2018

Material bearing on the case -- Production of copies of complaints, judgments and the FIR so to be lodged by the respondent by way of additional evidence has no material bearing on the facts of the case inasmuch as each case has to be decided on its own merits -- Judgments of other cases may not influence while deciding a particular case and cannot be a guiding factor as each case has its own peculiar facts.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Case fixed for arguments -- After complainant’s evidence, statement u/s 313 of the accused, case was fixed for arguments -- Petitioner/complainant want to summon and examine the concerned Clerk/Record Keeper of the office of Excise and Taxation Officer along with the record submitted before the office with regard to purchase of peddy by the accused/company – Held, evidence is based on the record of the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer which cannot be manipulated by the complainant -- So there is no question of filling any lacuna and the resultant prejudice to the respondents -- Rather it will assist the Court to arrive at the just decision of the case – Application for additional evidence allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.03.2015

Evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence regarding filing of similar complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the complainant against some other persons was well within the knowledge of the respondent, but he did not make any effort to lead any evidence to that effect before the trial Court itself at the time of his defence evidence – Application should not have been allowed by the Ld. Appellate court.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

In application pleading that he was not well-conversant with the technicalities of law and even his earlier counsel also did not give him proper advice and as such due to the negligence of his previous counsel, he could not produce the certified copies of the complaints as well as copy of the FIR – Held, respondent cannot be permitted to take the said pleas.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Deposit of 20% of compensation/fine – Courts are well within their power to order adjustment -- Amount recovered under the SARFAESI Act shall be deemed to have been adjusted towards 20% of the compensation as ordered by the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Challenge to finding on merit – Held, once the statement was made by the accused petitioner before the lower Appellate Court, acknowledging the due payments towards him, thereafter, he cannot be allowed to breath hot and cold in the same breadth to allege that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is illegal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative. .

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Since the respondent-accused has not denied his signature on the cheque in question, nor led any evidence in defence to this effect, therefore, applicant is granted leave to file the instant appeal -- Respondent is held guilty for commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act -- Matter is referred back to the trial Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent on the quantum of sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Legally enforceable liability -- Merely on the basis of the admission of signatures by the accused on the cheque in question, he cannot be held guilty for its dishonour without any proof of a legally enforceable liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.11.2016

Criminal liability -- Subsisting debt – For a criminal liability to be made out u/s 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheques -- View that issuance of cheques towards advance payment at the time of signing contract has to be considered as subsisting liability and dishonour of such cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not acceptable -- If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied by the supplier, the cheque cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability.

(SC) Decided on: 07.04.2014

Dishonour of – Criminal liability -- If at the time of entering into a contract, it is one of the conditions of the contract that the purchaser has to pay the amount in advance and there is breach of such condition then purchaser may have to make good the loss that might have occasioned to the seller but that does not create a criminal liability u/s 138 of N.I.Act.

(SC) Decided on: 07.04.2014

Issuance of cheque by client – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- If liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Professional misconduct -- Issuance of cheque by client as percentage – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Maintainability of -- Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint u/s 138 of the Act -- Claim of the respondent advocate being against public policy and being an act of professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law and have to be quashed -- Issue of professional misconduct is left to be dealt with at the appropriate forum.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Wrong date of cheque mentioned – Re-examination of -- Complainant allowed to appear as a witness and submit a fresh affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2018

Legally enforceable liability -- A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138.

(SC) Decided on: 13.03.2019

Existing liability -- Acquittal of accused-- Rs.8 lacs received by sons – No suit for specific performance filed by complainant – Complainant is in possession of property – Attorney of the complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that complainant had made a complaint to the police authorities, where a compromise was effected between the complainant and the respondent and in lieu of the said compromise, cheques in question had been issued by the accused – Compromise relied upon by the complainant was not duly proved on record -- Plea put-forth by the accused that the cheques in question had been got issued from him under fear and pressure, was believable -- Trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the cheques in question had not been issued for any existing liability – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.01.2015

Report from F.S.L., show that in the cheque in question '0' has been inserted to make the cheque from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.4,80,000/- -- In another cheque, digit '2' has been added, Rs.20,000/- converted to Rs.2,20,000 -- Nothing on the record to rebut this report – Held, cheque itself becomes void instrument even if the liability exists towards the accused – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Cheating – Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Non-bailable warrants – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender/person – Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Warrant of arrest -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Proclaimed person – Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Absence of accused – Non-bailable warrant – Accused remained absent without any intimation to the trial Court that is why the trial Court forfeited his surety and issued non-bailable warrants -- Without finding any fault with the order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, looking to the peculiar facts that the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is involved and the case being u/s 138 NI Act, there is no point to put the petitioner in custody – Non-bailable warrant set-aside, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the bail bonds earlier furnished by him before the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Proclaimed offender in cheque bounce case – Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015

Conviction in Cheque bounce case -- Suspension of sentence -- Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2022

Settling the dispute through mediation – Courts before which appeals against judgments in complaints u/s 138 of the Act are pending should be directed to make an effort to settle the disputes through mediation.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Cheque bounce case – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Appeal against acquittal -- Deposit of 25% of the amount of Compensation – Direction of -- Power of -- Amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the Appellant-accused u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence irrespective of the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C..

(SC) Decided on: 29.05.2019

Provision for deposit of 20% in Appeal -- Provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Provision for deposit of 20% in Appeal -- Provisions for recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant/convict already existed in the existing procedure relating to the recovery, therefore, the provision introduced vide Section 148 of the Act; which relates only to recovery of amount partly, as interim measure, has to be treated purely procedural only, which is otherwise also beneficial for the appellant as compared to the pre-existing provisions -- Hence it has to be held that provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Suspension of sentence -- Accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and compensation for amount of cheques in question – Accused preferred an appeal -- Suspension of sentence given, with a direction to accused-appellant to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation amount – Accused is aggrieved by such condition – Held, no merit in the revision petition, rather the same is not maintainable -- Appellate Court is justified in imposing any term or condition while suspending the sentence of the accused-appellant, rather the Appellate Court showed indulgence to the accused appellant by asking him to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation only, instead of the complete one -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which might have called for interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2017

Suspension of sentence by Appellate Court – When notice in the appeal has already been issued, the Appellate Court should have normally passed the order for suspension of sentence as the prayer to that effect was not declined -- Direction issued to the Appellate Court to pass specific order on the prayer for suspension of sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2015

Maintainability of appeal -- Acquittal of accused – Complainant could have approached High Court seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court -- However, the appeal before the Sessions Court was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2015

Provision for deposit of 20% in Appeal -- Provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Section 8 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Arbitration proceedings – No bar to proceed u/s 138 -- Even if arbitration proceedings have taken place, that cannot be a bar to the continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act -- If the arbitration proceedings have been finalized and award has been pronounced, the Court deciding the matter under Section 138 of the Act would certainly look into the aspect whether there exists some legal liability for issuance of cheque or not.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2018

No bar to proceed u/s 138 -- Even if arbitration proceedings have taken place, that cannot be a bar to the continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act -- If the arbitration proceedings have been finalized and award has been pronounced, the Court deciding the matter under Section 138 of the Act would certainly look into the aspect whether there exists some legal liability for issuance of cheque or not.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2018

Contention that there is arbitration clause in the agreement, therefore, complaints are not maintainable – Held, this argument has no force -- When the cheques have been dishonoured and returned back unpaid by the Bank and legal notices have been sent, then non-payment of the amount within prescribed period gave cause of action to file the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.05.2017

Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Account books/bahi entries are not the instruments of advancement of loan like pronote, bonds, or Bill of exchange etc. which can legally be enforced, as recognised in the N.I. Act -- Entries in account books are only relevant u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Evidential value -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act -- Entry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise -- Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability -- Commission agents used to obtain such blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legal liability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it -- Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Impounding of passport – Proclaimed Person – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Additional evidence -- Production of copies of complaints, judgments and the FIR so to be lodged by the respondent by way of additional evidence has no material bearing on the facts of the case inasmuch as each case has to be decided on its own merits -- Judgments of other cases may not influence while deciding a particular case and cannot be a guiding factor as each case has its own peculiar facts.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Two views -- Wherever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal, deserves to be adopted by the Courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2015

Two views – Wherever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal, deserves to be adopted by the Courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Second view -- If a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible. C. Antony’s case 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Two views – It is the cardinal principle of law that whenever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal is to be adopted by the courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Two views – Whenever two views are possible, the view which goes in favour of the acquittal is to be adopted by the courts.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Material alteration -- Filling in the blank shall not be always required to be treated as a material alteration -- Alteration in the common parlance is understood to mean, something already been written has been changed/altered subsequently -- Alteration is not synonymous to the word “filling up the unfilled column or space” -- Alteration is permissible, if it is made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Presumption of Legally enforceable liability – Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Rebuttal of presumption – Payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, this in itself would not invalidate the cheque -- Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence -- Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

No document for advance -- No document on record to show that the accused had either signed on any document after taking the advanced amount -- Accused was employee of the complainant and he left the job in March 2012, but cheque is of March 2013 i.e. after one year -- Defence taken by the accused that he was the employee and the blank cheques had been taken at the time of joining the complainant-firm is probable one -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Complainant himself admitted that he had filled in the body of the cheque in his own handwriting and accused was not present at that time – A blank cheque cannot be enforced even if it is issued for a legal liability – Filling of contents of cheque by the complainant amounts to alteration of cheque which is not permissible in law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Plea of misuse of cheque -- Case of accused is that he had only borrowed a sum of Rs.6000/- from complainant when he issued a blank cheque but subsequently, the same has been converted to an amount of Rs.6 lac -- Amount of Rs.6000/- has also been allegedly repaid by accused to complainant but to the utter surprise, no receipt in this regard was obtained -- Even, no effort has also been made by accused to get the cheque returned from complainant -- Such a lapse and omission on the part of accused is suggestive of the fact that defence plea, which has been put by him is a concocted one.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Commission agent-Farmers relationship -- No disclosure about the date of demand of loan and giving of loan in the complaint -- Accused has taken the defence from the very beginning that blank cheque was given to the complainant as security which was later on misused by the complainant -- Cheque has been filled in with different inks and different hand writings, rather admission clearly indicates that it was taken well in advance – Complainant was in a dominating position and had been advancing loans after getting their signatures on blank papers/cheques -- In fact, this is the mode adopted by the commission agents to always keep farmers in their clutches -- Since the complainant has admitted his relationship with the petitioner as commission agent and farmer, the complainant has withheld the best evidence with regard to sale of agricultural produce of the year by the accused – Accused is liable to be acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Rebuttal of Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Accused had clearly come up with the defence that the complainant had got his signatures on the blank cheques and other papers but no loan amount was disbursed to him -- Therefore, it was mandatory for the complainant to produce the record to show the liability and the fact that loan was given of this amount, on this date and how many installments the accused had paid and what amount remains due payable regarding which the cheque was issued -- In the absence of this evidence, the accused has rebutted the presumption that cheque is not issued for legally enforceable debt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2015

Authenticity of Bills -- In view of discrepancy in statements of witnesses regarding authenticity of Bill for which the alleged cheque in question was issued by the accused to the complainant for discharge of its debt; being under a cloud – Statement that cheques might have been issued against previous transaction, apparently lends credence to the defence of the accused that the blank cheque was collected by the complainant company as security at the time of starting the business -- Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014

Security cheques – Dishonour of – Blank cheque was handed over to the complainant as a security cheque and was not meant for enforcement of a debt -- Object of Section 138 of the Act is to avoid malignant trade practice of indiscriminately issuing cheques without sufficient funds -- Cannot be construed and brought within the gamut attracting the provisions of Section 138 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014

Presumption of legal enforceable liability -- Even if the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Financial capacity – During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Financial capacity – It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Rebuttal of presumption – Payee may fill up the amount and other particulars, this in itself would not invalidate the cheque -- Onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence -- Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption – Onus to rebut the presumption u/s 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Legal enforceable liability -- Money lending license – Appeal against acquittal – From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Evidence required against accused – In the cases of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act, the complainant is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, nor it is the requirement of law, like in other criminal trials dealing with the offences under the IPC -- By leading his evidence on the facts available on record, complainant is required to make out a prima facie case of cheque bouncing against the accused -- Thus, it is an exception to the general rule -- Thereafter, onus would shift and the accused would have to rebut the statutory presumption against him, by bringing on record cogent evidence in his defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.04.2015

Legally enforceable liability – Provisions of the N.I.Act lay down that initially, the complainant has to prove the existence of debt and other liabilities and thereafter the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt but was issued by way of security or any other reason on account of some business transaction or was obtained unlawfully.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Conviction in Cheque bounce case – Non-compliance of 20% deposit of compensation – Instead of depositing, the petitioner chose to file review and the same was dismissed, statutory period of 90 days for compliance elapsed -- Consequently, petitioner’s bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State -- After a period of about more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.11.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused after grant of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however, did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Non-appearance of accused – Non-bailable warrant -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a Reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Acquittal of accused -- Rebuttal of presumption – Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted even from the case of the complainant -- Complainant was a student till 2005 -- Nothing has been shown from where he was earning and advanced such an huge amount of Rs.2,80,000/- -- Capacity to lend such an huge amount has also not been shown by leading cogent evidence -- Complainant stated in his evidence that he borrowed some amount from his relative but none of the relative has been examined to prove this fact -- Court below found that presumption u/s 139 has been rebutted -- Held, in no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence – No ground made out for grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- No particulars have been given as to on which date, month or year the money was given on which this liability arose -- No security document was taken -- There was no document to show this transaction – Accused had not denied issuance of cheque, but has set up a defence that the cheque was issued to someone else as security -- Presumption has been rebutted by the accused – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- No date has been mentioned as to when the loan was given to the accused -- There is no document on record to show these loan transactions -- There is nothing in the complaints as to when the loan was demanded back by the complainants from the accused -- There are no particulars of liability of any type in the complaints – On the other hand, the accused has raised probable defence – No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- Friendly loan amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- to the accused – However, there is no evidence that the complainant had the capacity to advance Rs.11,30,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the respondent is shown in the Income Tax Return – Respondent-accused stated that the appellant had misused the cheque which he gave to his (appellant) brother, this fact is duly proved by the statement of independent witness -- Except self serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of advancement of loan – Ld. Trial Court acquitted the respondent -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- Appellant secured loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from one person and handed over to the accused -- However, there is no evidence that said person had the capacity to advance Rs.2,00,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the appellant is shown in the Income Tax Return or in any other record maintained by said person -- Appellant has not even examined that person -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- Loan/Cheque of Rs.18 lacs – Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Acquittal of accused -- No agreement to sell for harvesting combine -- No document regarding ownership of the harvesting combine -- Nothing on the record regarding the payment of Rs.10 lacs by the complainant to the accused – Accused has also appeared as defence witness and stated that she had litigation with “AS” and after received full and final payment he withdrew the complaint and complainant misused the cheque by taking the same from “AS” – In cross-examination, the accused admitted that he has taken cheque from “AS” – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to show the capacity of the complainant to pay such a huge amount -- Amount in question has not been shown in the income tax return nor bank record has been produced to show from where this amount has been withdrawn – Finding of Trial Court acquitting the accused upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Acquittal of accused -- No particulars were given as to when and how much amount has been given, no dates, months and years have been mentioned in the complaint -- When the complainant came into witness box, he took totally different stand by stating that the amount has been given to the accused by way of cheque of Rs.3 lacs – In statement of accounts no such entry regarding the withdrawal of sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of cheque has been specifically pointed out by the complainant -- Complainant also failed to prove source of such a huge amount -- Statement of complainant is contradictory to the version given in the complaint -- Complainant is working as commission agent, he has not produced on record his account books to show entry regarding advancement of loan to the accused -- Rather, in cross-examination, he has stated that he has not reflected the said amount in books of account -- Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been duly rebutted by the accused – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- No ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Acquittal of accused -- When the loan was given, it was not shown in the income tax return nor in any other document -- Furthermore, the complainant was not even having the mobile number or any other number of the accused to show that he has friendly relations with the accused and it creates doubt -- Moreover, no security document has been taken at the time of lending the loan -- No source of huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been disclosed by the complainant -- It looks doubtful that complainant will lend such an huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- without getting executed any document -- No document is there regarding advancement of any other earlier loan -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act has been rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Acquittal of accused -- Accused demanded friendly loan of Rs.1,50,000/- -- Complainant stated that at the relevant time he was not having Rs.1,50,000/- and was having only Rs.1,35,000/-, rather has got Rs.1,35,000/- from his Mamaji by mortgaging the gold -- Petitioner-complainant could not tell the name of his Mamaji, from whom he has borrowed the money -- It shows that the story formulated by the petitioner is pulpably false -- Moreover, the petitioner has admitted the fact that the cheques issued by the accused were returned to him after receiving the payment from him – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2015

Cheque bounce case – Pre-mature complaint – Demand notice period of 15 days not expired -- Complaint filed before fifteen days -- In view of the legal bar created by Section 142 of the NI Act, taking of cognizance by the Court was contrary to the law and the complaint was not maintainable.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Second notice – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Maintainability of – Respondent issued notices, although, the notice was duly served, the Respondent did not take any steps to file the complaint within the period prescribed – Held, a cheque may be presented several times within the period of its validity, the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act arises but once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour of the cheque and the receipt thereof by the drawer – Ld. Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the complaints filed on the basis of the second notices, High Court also wrongly affirmed the same – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2010

Admission of liability in court – Held, once the statement was made by the accused petitioner before the lower Appellate Court, acknowledging the due payments towards him, thereafter, he cannot be allowed to breath hot and cold in the same breadth to allege that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is illegal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Dishonour of cheque -- Amount advanced towards the business transaction and loan agreement entered into between the parties -- Period for repayment was agreed and the cheque issued to ensure repayment -- Mere dishonour of the cheque cannot be construed as an act with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received -- No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Amount advanced towards the business transaction and loan agreement entered into between the parties -- Mere dishonour of the cheque cannot be construed as an act with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received -- No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Quashing of complaint -- 15% amount deposited in Legal Services Authority – Resultantly, impugned judgments and order of sentence are set aside and criminal complaint filed by the complainant is quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2015

Acquittal -- Cheque amount of Rs.2,36,290/- -- All the documents of the complainant pertain to alleged transactions of the accused and if the amount is calculated, remaining amount of receipts comes to Rs.1,73,179/- only, which is less than the cheque amount -- Trial Court held presumption has been duly rebutted, the cheque amount was not due and legal notice is of more amount than actually payable -- Accused-respondent has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.09.2018

Reduction of sentence -- Maximum sentence of R.I. for two years imposed -- Compensation of payment of the cheque amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till the date of the judgment also awarded -- Award of maximum sentence is held to be arbitrary -- Petitioner is a poor person and having undergone a protracted trial of almost 10 years, also exist -- Sentence is reduced to RI for a period of one year and six months along with payment of compensation as awarded by the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Reduction of sentence -- Sentenced to R.I. for one year, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case default sentence of one month -- Conduct of the petitioner is extremely disturbing, firstly, did not appear at the time the Appeal was pending before the ASJ and was declared a proclaimed offender and was released on interim bail -- Petitioner continued as such for a period of approximately three years -- When the matter came up for hearing before High Court, an assurance was given that he would surrender and file a revision petition, however the petitioner was untraceable -- No mitigating circumstances for reducing his sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Sentence to convict -- Trial Court convicted the accused for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- -- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to 1 year and 3 months but the fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Sentence reduced to 6 months – Petitioner/accused is facing the agony of trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition for more than 13 years -- Petitioner is a labourer and for personal necessity, he had obtained the amount from the respondent, which he could not pay; the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case and, as such, a first offender; the petitioner remained on bail during the pendency of the trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition, but he did not misuse the concession of bail; the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for 5 months and 8 days – Substantive sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2015

Acquittal of accused -- No date, month and year has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- If the amount was given for the business purposes, then it looks unnatural that there were no terms and conditions to pay the interest -- Furthermore, no receipt or security document has been obtained at the time of advancing such a huge amount -- No particulars of loan transactions have been mentioned by stating that at which place and in whose presence this amount was given -- Furthermore, there is also no particular as to when the loan was demanded back -- Accused is entitled to acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Acquittal of accused – Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Trail Court convicted the petitioner for 1 year – Sentence is ordered to be reduced to already undergone (10 months-appox).

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2015

Sentence to convict -- Substantive sentence reduced from the period of R.I. for 1 ½ years to R.I. for one year.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.05.2017

Imposition of sentence for a period of two years in the case in hand appears to be on higher side and cannot be said to be adequate, just or proportionate and commensurative with the nature of the offence committed by the accused -- Court should strike a proper balance while awarding sentence keeping in view the nature and gravity of offence -- Imposition of sentence is modified from rigorous imprisonment of two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Cheque was returned back unpaid with the remarks “account closed” – Even if it is taken that the cheque had been drawn by the accused, it was not drawn from the account of the accused -- One of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing -- No ground to grant leave to file appeal – Application dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Criminal liability -- Liability was of M/s Karan Traders which is Sole Proprietorship – Cheque was issued by Husband of the Sole Proprietor – Held, there was no legal liability on the part of husband – Complaint rightly dismissed by Trial court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2018

Loan by father – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – In complaint no liability against accused – No evidence on record to show that accused ever stood surety or given in writing any undertaking to repay the loan of his father – Branch Manager admitted that no loan was taken by the accused – Cheque in question issued by the accused is not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt against the State – No ground to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Cheque signed by drawer – It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer -- If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Quashing of complaint -- Contention that the cheque in question not issued and signed by petitioner – Fact of complaint are that he was director and authorized signatory and the firm issued cheque in question and upon presentation it was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” – Held, the petitioner has been summoned in view of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which imposes vicarious liability upon every person who at the time of offence was in charge of conducting the business of the company – No ground to quash the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well-reasoned order of summoning.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.05.2017

Acquittal of Director -- No mention that accused was in-charge of the respondent-Company and was responsible for the business and affairs of the company -- Cheque has been issued by other accused, who had already died -- No averment in the complaint that accused was also responsible for the day to day business of the Company -- Director can only be held as liable if he is actively doing and taking part in the business of the company and this fact is to be specifically pleaded in the complaint – Accused has been rightly acquitted by the Court below.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Criminal liability -- If the person who commits an offence u/s 138 of the Act is a company, the company as well as other person in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence is deemed to be guilty of the offence -- Thus, it creates a constructive liability on the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Criminal liability of Director/Executive Director – Issuance of summons – Challenge to -- Averments put forth in complaint relating to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that they are whole-time Director and Executive Director and they were in charge of day to day affairs of the Company – Held, High Court has fallen into grave error by coming to the conclusion that there are no specific averments in the complaint for issuance of summons against the said accused persons – Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Officer of the Company -- Offence by Company -- Section 141 contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extended to officers of a company -- Since the provision creates criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with -- Persons who had nothing to do with the matter need not be roped in -- Officers of a Company who are responsible for acts done in the name of the Company are sought to be made personally liable for acts which result in criminal action being taken against the Company -- It makes every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company, as well as the Company, liable for the offence – There is an escape route for persons who are able to 'prove' that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the offence -- Conclusion is inevitable that the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company -- Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Quashing of complaint -- Offence by Company/Director – (i) In order to make the company liable u/s 138 of the Act vicariously, the Director can be prosecuted if there is specific recital that the Directors thereof were at the time when offence the offence committed, were responsible for the conduct and day to day business of the complaint -- Director, who had resigned long back before the cheque was presented cannot be prosecuted -- One of the Director in the array of accused was never Director of the company since its incorporation and still he has been arrayed as accused in the capacity of Director -- The certification to this effect is computerized information, which is perse admissible under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, rather this document has not been denied with reference to any evidence to the contrary. (ii) Averments even if made in the complaint that the Director was in-charge, the same can be negated if the High Court comes across some unimpeachable/acceptable circumstance, which may lead to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and therefore, making such Director as an accused to stand trial would be an abuse of process of law. (iii) It is mandatory in terms of Section 138 and 141 of the Act to specifically aver in the complaint that Director was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, when the offence was committed and he was responsible for day to day functioning of the company -- Role of the Director in a company is a question of fact depending upon the nomenclature of the company and other circumstances prevailing therein -- There cannot be any universal application of the rule that a Director of company is in-charge of its day to day affairs. (iv) Section 141 of the Act is a penal provision creating criminal liability -- As per nature of the offence it has to be strictly construed -- It is not sufficient to make bald cursory statement in a complaint that Director/Directors is/are in-charge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without specifying anything more as to the role of the Director/Directors -- It is requirement of law that the complainant must spell out as to how and in what manner the accused are in-charge of the affairs of the company in the conduct of its business and thus responsible for the same. (v) Some times a Director is not the active Director and he may be non executive Director, who was no doubt a custodian of governance of the company, but at the same time was not involved in day to day affairs running of its business -- For making such a Director liable there must have been specific averment in the complaint as to how and in what manner such a Director was responsible for conduct of business of the company -- In the absence of such plea the Court can definitely come to rescue of such Director against whom the proceedings are nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. (vi) “no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against the Director/accused unless specific allegations should comeforth in complaint, earmarking unambiguous role in the context of charge and responsibility in discharge of day to functioning of the company so as to prevent embarking on a fishing expedition to try and unearth material against the Director. Complaint is liable to quashed being abuse of process of law and is deficient in formulising vicarious liability of the petitioners in terms of Section 141 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Process against Director -- Offence by Company -- So far as Directors who are not signatories to the cheques or who are not Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors are concerned, it is necessary to aver in the complaint filed u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company -- This is a basic requirement -- There is no deemed liability of such Directors -- It is the basic and essential averment which persuades the Magistrate to issue process against the Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Quashing of Complaint -- Issuance of process against Company/Directors -- Supreme Court summarized the law as follows: a) Once in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act the basic averment is made that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Magistrate can issue process against such Director; b) If a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of such a complaint by the Director, the High Court may, in the facts of a particular case, on an overall reading of the complaint, refuse to quash the complaint because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director. c) In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence or circumstances, complaint cannot be quashed; d) No restriction can be placed on the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the Court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry, but, nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary qua a particular Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – It is necessary for a complainant to state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company -- Although, no particular form for making such an allegation is prescribed but a reading of the complaint should show that the substance of the accusation discloses that the accused person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- There is no specific or even a general allegation made against the appellants -- Complaint against the appellants deserves dismissal.

(SC) Decided on: 25.03.2014

Vicarious liability of Director -- Averment in a complaint that an accused is a director and that he is in charge of and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, duly affirmed in the sworn statement, may be sufficient for the purpose of issuing summons to him -- But if the accused is not one of the persons who falls under the category of 'persons who are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company' then merely by stating that 'he was in charge of the business of the company' or by stating that 'he was in charge of the day to day management of the company' or by stating that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company', he cannot be made vicariously liable under section 141(1) of the Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2009

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused -- Rebuttal of presumption – No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Rebuttal of presumption -- No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Acquittal of accused -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent -- No date, month or year was mentioned that when the accused borrowed the money -- It is highly improbable that applicant advanced an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused without any receipt or pronote -- There is no document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Acquittal of accused -- No document for advancement of loan -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Leave to appeal -- Loan of 32 lacs without any receipt or pronote – Acquittal of accused – Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent from his bank account or from any other source -- In the absence of any document that the applicant had the alleged amount with him, it is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.32 lacs to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record – Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2015

Leave to appeal -- No document for advancement of loan -- Loan of 32 lacs without any receipt or pronote – Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent from his bank account or from any other source -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record – Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Complaint after second default – Permissibility of -- Prosecution based on a second or successive default in payment of the cheque amount is not impermissible simply because no statutory notice had been issued after the first default and no proceeding for prosecution had been initiated.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Acquittal of accused – Held, one of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing – Offence u/s 138 of NI Act is not made out – Neither the complaint has been filed u/s 420 IPC nor there is any averment in the complaint proving the ingredient of Section 420 IPC – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- Complainant failed to prove that he suffered any loss on account of alleged late supply of the machinery and was legally entitled to claim any damages from accused -- Even late supply of the machinery is not proved -- Therefore, accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act to prove that there was 'no legally enforceable debt', for which the cheques are stated to have been issued -- Disputed claim of damages, which are not determined by any authority cannot be called debt or legally recoverable debt – No offence u/s 138 of the Act – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2015

Legally enforceability – Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Acquittal of accused – Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Loan transaction – Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Trial Court closed the cross examination of CW-1 without taking note of the absence of the lawyer for the petitioners – Stated that non-appearance was due to demise of father of petitioners' counsel and this fact was also brought to the notice of the concerned Court -- Order set aside and parties permitted to appear before the trial Court subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not seek any further adjournment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Section does not authorize the Court to close the defense or to take any other step for speeding up the trial as such -- This provision is intended to create a 'stand alone liability' which has to be discharged independent of the trial and which shall have consequences outside the trial only.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Standalone liability -- Closing of defence not permissible – This section does not authorize the Trial Court to pass any order, having consequences against the accused qua the steps of the trial; in case of non-payment of interim compensation -- This section does not authorize the Court to close the defense or to take any other step for speeding up the trial as such -- This provision is intended to create a 'stand alone liability' which has to be discharged independent of the trial and which shall have consequences outside the trial only.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Accused was absent -- Justification in – Order, closing the evidence of the complainant, on the date when the accused himself was not present is not justified and accordingly, the same is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2017

Effect of -- Cheque in question was dishonoured only because of closure of bank account and not because of insufficient fund – Held, closure of the bank account will not discharge the accused from his financial liability -- On the other hand, it makes offence more serious for the reason that malafide intention of the accused gets disclosed, particularly when there is no defence evidence available on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.04.2015

Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Order 21 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 9 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal in criminal case – Civil liability to pay -- Claim of the plaintiff was not based on dishonour of the cheques -- It was based on the basis of transaction of supply of poultry feed to the company and the bills raised therefore -- Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Illegal activity -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.11.2022

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 269 SS – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 311 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Summoning of Clerk/ bank official with records of cheque – Diet money already stands deposited by the petitioner -- No force in the finding recorded by the court below that the application is to fulfill the lacuna in the light of the fact that application u/s 311 CrPC was made much prior in time before closing of the evidence by the petitioner – Case is fixed for defence evidence, in that eventuality if the application u/s Section 311 CrPC is allowed, no prejudice is going to be caused to the parties and rather, it would be in the interest of justice to provide one opportunity -- One opportunity granted subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 374, 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Conviction of accused by trial court – Ex-parte dismissal of appeal -- Held, impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and her counsel which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the matter directly relates to life and liberty of the applicant-petitioner, thus, it would be travesty of justice and violation of principles of natural justice -- Impugned order passed by the ld. ASJ set aside -- Petitioner directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 21.11.2022, no adjournment shall be granted and ld. ASJ, shall hear and decide the appeal on the date fixed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 311, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Additional documents by complainant – Petitioner/ complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents -- No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence -- Purpose of trial is to elicit truth -- Trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution -- Petitioner permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Section 205, 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Transfer of complaint – Exemption form appearance -- Complaint cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused -- Petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen, therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance -- If an application is made by the petitioner for grant of exemption, the learned trial Judge shall favorably consider the same -- Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial – Transfer petition dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- West Bengal to Kerala -- Petitioner states that the entire transaction of loan, for which the cheque was alleged to have been issued, had taken place at Calicut, Kerala – Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Calcutta (Kolkata), West Bengal is invoked as the cheque was presented in a Bank, which was within the jurisdiction of that Court – In such circumstances, it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the complaint to the Court at Kerala – Petition allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complaints in Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan -- Case of the petitioner that the complaints have been filed u/s 138 at different places by the respondents who are total strangers -- According to her, it is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute and it is her case that the complaints have been orchestrated by her husband – Cases transferred to the competent Court at New Delhi.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case -- Legal presumption u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act – Time barred debt – Quashing of summoning order -- Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available u/s 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act -- Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the accused u/s Section 482 of the CrPC.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXIX – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Bangalore to Delhi – Case of the petitioners that they have to first go to Delhi and then travel to the said place where the trial is currently being held and they would have to bring their witnesses, on the other hand, respondent has a corporate office at New Delhi – Held, interest of justice would be subserved if the cases are transferred to the competent Court in New Delhi -- Cases transferred from Bangalore to Delhi.

(SC) Decided on: 19.09.2022

Section 311 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Additional evidence -- Section 311 can be exercised at any stage of the trial -- Only test prescribed as to whether such evidence which is being sought to be produced by resorting to Section 311 of the Code is essential to the just decision of the case or not – Trial Court has not given any finding as such – Impugned order set aside, Trial Court directed to decide the application afresh by testing the application on the touchstone of 'whether the evidence sought to be produced is essential for the just decision of the case or not'.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 29.08.2022 Pronounced on: 16.09.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Delhi to Madhya Pradesh -- Alleged transactions took place in the district of Raisen in the State of Madhya Pradesh -- Cheques were also drawn in Madhya Pradesh – Ends of justice would be served if the complaints pending before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi transferred to the Competent Court in District Raisen, Madhya Pradash.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Tamil Nadu to Haryana -- Sole-respondent is shown to be a resident of Delhi and his office address is indicated as being situated in Haryana -- Keeping in view the fact that the transfer of the petitions would be to the convenience of both the parties, the prayer of the petitioner is accordingly accepted – Complaint transferred.

(SC) Decided on: 30.08.2022

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 (2)(a) – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act against Proprietor -- Proprietorship Firm not made party – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order – Statutory signification assigned to a 'Company', does visibly cover not only any corporate body, but also covers a firm, or other association of individuals -- Held, Sole proprietary entity though is obviously solitarily owned, yet, the said juristic person, or, legal entity rather becomes 'a person' committing an offence u/s 138, and, besides the said juristic person, is also a 'Company' – Therefore, not only the juristic entity concerned, was amenable for being arrayed as an accused in the petition complaint, but also all those persons responsible to the sole proprietary concern , for the conduct of its business -- Complaint reveals that the sole proprietary concern has not been arrayed as an accused, but only its sole proprietor has been arrayed as an accused – Petition allowed complaint u/s of the N.I. Act as well as, the summoning order both are quashed and set aside.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.08.2022 Pronounced on: 26.08.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Gujarat to Mumbai -- Trial at fag end – Complaint in 2016, thereafter, the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of the amount subject matter of the cheque in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and one more suit for injunction in a Court in Mumbai – Trial in the complaint has substantially progressed and even a statement of the petitioner u/s 313 of the Cr.PC has been recorded – At this stage, the prayer for transfer of the complaint cannot be entertained.

(SC) Decided on: 18.08.2022

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Section 200 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Cause of action – Pre-mature complaint – Second complaint -- Demand notice period of 15 days not expired -- Complaint filed before fifteen days -- In view of the legal bar created by Section 142 of the NI Act, taking of cognizance by the Court was contrary to the law and the complaint was not maintainable -- Respondent would be at liberty to institute a fresh complaint and to seek the benefit of the proviso by satisfying the trial court of sufficient cause for the delay in instituting the complaint.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Section 300 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2022

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Revision -- Allegation of forgery against complainant -- Had that been the case, the accused would have certainly filed a criminal complaint in that regard -- No effort has been made to examine any expert either -- Further, there is no denial by the petitioner to the signatures upon the cheque -- Except bald assertion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence even while referring to the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses – No infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the ld. Appellate Court – No merit, revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Revision -- Reduction of sentence -- Cheque amounting Rs.4,58,000/- -- Sentenced to R.I. for one year, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case default sentence of one month -- Conduct of the petitioner is extremely disturbing, firstly, did not appear at the time the Appeal was pending before the ASJ and was declared a proclaimed offender and was released on interim bail -- Petitioner continued as such for a period of approximately three years -- When the matter came up for hearing before High Court, an assurance was given that he would surrender and file a revision petition, however the petitioner was untraceable -- No mitigating circumstances for reducing his sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 401 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Cheque bounce case – 20% pre-deposit of compensation – Extension of time-- Addl. Session Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation by 04.06.2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022 – High Court extended time upto 30.06.2022 by taking sympathetic consideration.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 401 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Out of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2500/- was to be paid to the complainant – High Court reduced the sentence from one year to three months – Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.05.2022

Section 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Bailable case – Need of anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Section 389, 421, 446 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction in 4 cheque bounce cases – Suspension of sentence in appeals – Brother/Appellant stood surety for Rs. 1 lac – Convict/Appellant in appeals absented and bail bond/ surety bond forfeited – Appellate court directed the surety/appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac each in four cases – Recovery warrants issued – Convict/ Appellant has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court -- Absence of convict/ appellant was beyond the control of the Surety/appellant – Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Section 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Suspension of sentence in appeal with pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation – Held, pre-condition as imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, cannot be found fault with, being legal and in consonance with the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.04.2022

Section 320, 401, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Exemption from 15% of Cheque amount -- Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Section 357(3), 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) Section 138, 148 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation -- Petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, as a pre-condition for his suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal – Petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2022

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Compromise at revisional stage – Waiver of cost of 15% of cheque amount -- Petitioner has a poor financial condition is apparent from the fact that the complainant has agreed to finally settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, although, the cheque was for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- -- Petitioner is a 51 year old lady who is stated to be having no source of livelihood and with great difficulty, she has repaid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant -- Keeping in view the said special facts and circumstances, this Court deemed it appropriate that no costs should be imposed upon the petitioner -- Revision allowed and judgments of Lower Courts set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2022

Section 378, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in -- Appeal against -- Suspension of sentence -- Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount equivalent to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation during the proceedings of trial and that the petitioner presently is facing a financial crunch and is unable to deposit another 20% though he has a good case on merits -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time – If the petitioner or his counsel is not present on the dates fixed, it shall be open to the Lower Appellate Court to nominate any counsel from Free Legal Aid.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Section 406 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXIX – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Karnataka to Telangana – Matter pending before the Court at Hubli, Dharwad District, Karnataka transferred to Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State where the petitioners are residing.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2022

Section 374, 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2022

Section 446A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Section 374 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Section 374, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Section 357(3), 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Conviction in Cheque bounce case – Non-compliance of 20% deposit of compensation – Cancellation of bail -- R.I. for a period of one year and to pay Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation and in default further R.I. for three months – Appellate court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days -- Instead of depositing, the petitioner chose to file review and the same was dismissed, statutory period of 90 days for compliance elapsed -- Consequently, petitioner’s bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State -- After a period of about more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.11.2021

Section 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-waiver of – Reasoning for – Requirement of -- While dealing with the exceptional circumstances, the Court has to justify the direction for waiver by assigning reasons – If a prayer for waiver of pre-deposit has been made before the Appellate Court, the minimum requirement for compliance of principle of natural justice would be that the litigant comes to know from the order passed that the plea raised by him were considered and dealt with -- Supreme Court decision was not considered -- It is not forth coming from the order that the pleas raised by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit were dealt with, it is so, as the Court proceeded on the basis that there is no discretion for waiver -- Impugned orders are set aside -- Petitions disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Appellate Court, to consider the application for suspension of sentence and prayer for waiver of pre-deposit afresh in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal's case 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 2956 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10018 = 2019 (1) L.A.R. 21.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Section 357, 397, 401 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 N.I. Act -- Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – Trial court sentenced fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, in the event of default, appellant/ convict would undergo S.I. for six months -- Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Section 202 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry by Magistrate – Requirement of -- Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 202 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 -- Cheque bounce case -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry by Magistrate – Procedure of -- Held, section 202 (2) of the Code is inapplicable to complaints u/s 138 in respect of examination of witnesses on oath – For the conduct of inquiry u/s Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit -- In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 211, 219, 220 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 -- Cheque bounce case -- Multiple complaints – Service of summons – Common trial -- Recommended that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences u/s 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code -- High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 258, 322 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Summoning of accused – Review of -- Judgments in Adalat Prasad, (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman (2004) 13 SCC 324 have interpreted the law correctly -- Reiterated that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons -- This does not affect the power of the Trial Court u/s 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint – Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints u/s 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments, (2018) 1 SCC 560 do not lay down correct law.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 260 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Conversion of trial -- Summon trial – Summary trial – Role of Magistrate -- Object of Section 143 of the Act is quick disposal of the complaints u/s 138 by following the procedure prescribed for summary trial under the Code, to the extent possible -- Discretion conferred on the Magistrate by the second proviso to Section 143 is to be exercised with due care and caution, after recording reasons for converting the trial of the complaint from summary trial to summons trial -- High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints u/s 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 374, 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Appeal/ Revision in cheque bounce case -- Settling the dispute through mediation – High Courts requested to identify the pending revisions arising out of complaints filed u/s 138 of the Act and refer them to mediation at the earliest -- Courts before which appeals against judgments in complaints u/s 138 of the Act are pending should be directed to make an effort to settle the disputes through mediation.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Impugned FIR is an outcome of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in proceedings initiated against him u/s 138 of the NI Act, which stands settled as the complainant has withdrawn the complaint and the proceedings against the accused-petitioner have been dropped -- In such circumstances, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person as well as the continuation of his prosecution cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2021

Section 313 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal by trial court – Conviction by High Court -- Appellant has only recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration -- Once the facts came on record remained unrebutted and supported with the evidence on record with no substantive evidence of defence of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against her – Appellant has been rightly convicted.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 313 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) -- Cheque bounce case – After cheques being bounced, two separate legal notices were served, even after receiving the said notices, the appellant neither responded to the notices nor made any payment within the statutory period of fifteen days – When the complainant exhibited all documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support thereof, the appellant has recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence -- Statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 of the Code is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused -- No evidence to rebut the presumption -- Held, High Court, has not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed u/s 138 of the Act, which needs no further interference -- Appeals being without any substance, dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Joint liability/debt – Cheque by one – No joint account with drawer – Not a signatory to cheque – Quashing of complaint -- A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque -- Section 141 of the NI Act is relating to the offence by companies and it cannot be made applicable to the individuals – Held, High Court committed a grave error in not quashing the complaint against the appellant/wife -- Criminal complaint filed against the appellant can be said to be abuse of process of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case – Complaint u/s 138/142 of N.I. Act – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC – After notice of accusation, the petitioner did not appear before the ld. Trial Court, he was declared as proclaimed person – Subsequently, the petitioner caused his appearance on the same day and was released on bail – Petitioner settled the dispute with the complainant-Company and the entire amount was paid and the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – Consequently, petition is allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.03.2021

Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise between parties -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- FIR is an outcome of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in proceedings initiated u/s 138 of NI Act which stands settled, the complaint has been withdrawn and the proceedings against the accused-petitioner were dropped – Held, in such circumstances, the continuation of prosecution u/s 174-A IPC in pursuance to the orders passed by the trial Court cannot be permitted to continue -- Petition allowed, FIR along with all consequential proceedings emanated therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender/person – Anticipatory bail -- Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Declaration of Proclaimed Person – Challenge to -- Complaint is u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881, which is a bailable offence, petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may appear before the learned trial Court on or before 27.01.2021 -- On his doing so, he shall be enlarged on bail by the trial Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 82, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforementioned FIR alive -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declared as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.12.2020

Section 372, 374 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A, 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138, 142 NI Act, 420 IPC compromised between the parties and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint – Held, continuation of the proceedings including the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 174-A of IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.12.2020

Section 374 -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006), Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 141 – Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Held, if the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the condition that he would deposit Rs. 1.00 lac with the trial Court by way of demand draft in favour of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the said demand draft be deposited in a fixed deposit with bank, fetching the maximum rate of interest.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Rule 4 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Account of the Company was frozen by virtue of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the NCLT -- All the moveable and immoveable assets of the Company have been taken over – Held, cheque in question is dated 12.06.2017, which was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 i.e. much prior to the passing of the order by the NCLT -- Even the legal notice dated 26.08.2017 served upon the petitioner is prior to commencement of IBC proceedings – Petitioner cannot thus take ruse under NCLT order passed after the institution of impugned complaint and passing of the summoning order

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 82, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person/offender – Quashing petition on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Summoning order and order declaring proclaimed person/offender quashed

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Declaration of proclaimed person -- Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Section 82 – Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Section 386, 401 (1) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A, 147, 148 – Cheque bounce case -- Sentence to accused -- Revisional power – Nature of -- While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court possesses exercises all the powers conferred on an Appellate Court to alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused -- Compromise at revisional stage – Acquittal from -- Matter can be compromised at the stage of pendency of revisional proceedings before the High Court -- Conviction and sentence of the accused can be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1907 and Sri Ashish Subba’s case 2018 (1) RCR (Criminal) 971 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2020

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Revisional jurisdiction -- In a revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like Court of an appeal - - Not pointed out as to how the findings given by the courts below are perverse or against the evidence -- Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not considered by the courts below -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I.Act arose against the accused and it was first for him to rebut the same -- But he failed to rebut the presumption -- Rather, the complainant led even cogent evidence to prove his case beyond any doubt -- Concurrent findings given by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence in right perspective – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.02.2020

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Signatures on the cheque is not denied, yet the complainant has failed to prove any friendly relationship with the accused -- No acknowledgement has been placed on record nor in the income tax returns Mark `A’ and Mark `B’, there is any reference of loan when it is an admitted fact that the wife of attorney (complainant) had been into the business of Hire Purchase and Investment for the last 20 years -- It is permissible for the accused to point out contradictions/deficiencies in the evidence led by the prosecution and that it is not necessary for the accused to lead evidence in defence to rebut the presumption -- No ground to grant leave to appeal. ANSS Raja Shekhar’s case (2019) SCC 185 & Kishan Rao’s case (2018) 8 SCC 165 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.02.2020

Section 300 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) -- Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Double jeopardy -- Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Accused summoned u/s 138 NI Act -- Absence of complainant -- Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of -- On account of absence of complainant on one occasion dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution was not justified, since, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, non-suiting the parties on technical grounds -- Present petition challenging the impugned order is maintainable and no fault can be found with the same -- Petition accepted; impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored at its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender -- Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2019

Section 219 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Four cheque bounced – One legal notice issued – Consolidation of trial -- There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure – Only relief that can be granted, Trial Magistrate directed to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

(SC) Decided on: 05.09.2019

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the petitioner only when the Court is certain that the continuation of the proceedings would be of no use and the Court is in a position to record from finding that continuation of such proceedings would result in abuse of the process of the Court -- Once there is a doubt or there are certain questions which need adjudication on appreciation of evidence, the High Court should not exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Section 421 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce case – Interim compensation -- Non-deposit of – It is nowhere, specifically provided in the Act that if the payment as ordered has not been deposited, the bail granted shall be liable to be consequently cancelled – Recovery can be made of such defaulted amount as if it is a fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. -- During the trial of the case, the Court should not cancel the bail already granted on this ground alone.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 357(2), 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Appeal against conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Deposit of 25% of the amount of Compensation – Direction of -- Power of -- Amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the Appellant-accused u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence irrespective of the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C..

(SC) Decided on: 29.05.2019

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.05.2019 Pronounced on : 21.05.2019

Section 5 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143-A, 148 -- All the provisions relating to punishment, execution thereof, fine and compensation and recovery thereof, as contained in the Cr.P.C, has to be read in conjunction and in harmony with Section 143-A and Section 148 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Section 378, 421, 424 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Appeal against conviction -- Provision for deposit of 20% in Appeal -- Nature of -- Procedural in nature – Applicability on pending appeals -- Provisions for recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant/convict already existed in the existing procedure relating to the recovery, therefore, the provision introduced vide Section 148 of the Act; which relates only to recovery of amount partly, as interim measure, has to be treated purely procedural only, which is otherwise also beneficial for the appellant as compared to the pre-existing provisions -- Hence it has to be held that provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Section 5 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143-A, 148 -- All the provisions relating to punishment, execution thereof, fine and compensation and recovery thereof, as contained in the Cr.P.C, has to be read in conjunction and in harmony with Section 143-A and Section 148 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Section 378, 421, 424 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Appeal against conviction -- Provision for deposit of 20% in Appeal -- Nature of -- Procedural in nature – Applicability on pending appeals -- Provisions for recovery of fine or compensation from the appellant/convict already existed in the existing procedure relating to the recovery, therefore, the provision introduced vide Section 148 of the Act; which relates only to recovery of amount partly, as interim measure, has to be treated purely procedural only, which is otherwise also beneficial for the appellant as compared to the pre-existing provisions -- Hence it has to be held that provision of Section 148 of the Act shall govern all the appeals pending on date of enforcement of this provision or filed thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Offence by Company – Liability of Director – Quashing of Complaint by High court -- Law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence was committed – High Court, in deciding a quashing petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- High Court must exercise its power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.

(SC) Decided on: 28.02.2019

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Arbitration proceedings – Non-disclosure of issuance of cheque in arbitration matter -- Trial Court has taken one of the two possible views and High Court while exercising the powers in appeal against acquittal cannot substitute its views with the view taken by learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.01.2019

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Acquittal in cheque bounce case -- Complainant is not aware about the business of the accused for which the alleged loan was advanced -- Complainant further testified that the amount in question was obtained from friends and relatives in order to give it to the accused for his business -- No source of income has been proved by the complainant -- DW1, Tax Assistant from Income Tax Office has proved the income tax return of the complainant, which do not contain the amount advanced as loan to the accused – Finding that cheque in question was not issued towards any debt or legal liability is based on correct appraisal of the evidence and a possible view had been adopted – Appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2019

Section 378 (4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record that amount was demanded back from accused -- No document to prove that complainant is doing joint business with accused – Accused produced DDR regarding loss of cheque – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- Nothing on record to show that findings are against evidence and law – No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.12.2018

Section 378 (4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Loan of Rs.8 lacs – Cheque bounce case – Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- In the complaint, it has been simply stated that the loan of Rs.8 lakhs was advanced to the accused in the month of March 2015 -- No specific date has been mentioned -- No other particulars have been given -- No security document had been obtained from the accused -- Complainant had also not taken any receipt of the loan -- There is no document on record to show the loan transaction -- There is no date as to when the loan was demanded back -- In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he does not know accused and his family personally he knows them through brother-in-law of the accused -- Complainant admits that a sale deed was executed in his favour by the mother of the accused and further three cases were withdrawn by him -- All this evidence supports the defence version raised by the accused -- Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- Leave to file appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – One more complaint pending – Effect of – Rebuttal of Presumption – Complaint for dishonour of the cheque already filed in November 2011 – It is not explained, why again amount of Rs.2 lakhs were lent in June 2012 and that too without any document -- No ordinary person will do this -- Presumption has been rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.11.2018

Section 204 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Offence by Company -- Summoning of Directors of the Company -- Held in order to reduce litigation it would be appropriate for the concerned Magistrates to seek copies of Form No. 32 and the latest Annual Return filed by the Company so that only those persons who are Directors on the date of commission of the offence are summoned – Directions given that in all cases where the accused is a 'Company', before issuing summons to the accused persons the trial Court/Magistrate shall direct the complainant to produce a copy of Form No. 32 and the annual Return filed by the Company in order to determine the persons, who were Directors on the date of commission of the offence -- In cases where the accused–Director is the Chairman or Managing Director or Joint Managing Director or authorized signatory of the cheque, they may be summoned without any averment regarding their role in the conduct of the affairs of the Company -- For summoning of any other Director or officer of the Company the necessary averment regarding their role in the conduct of the business of the Company, must be insisted upon -- In respect of whole time Directors, mere reproduction of the words of Section 141 of the Act would be sufficient.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Section 397, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case -- Summoning of accused – Quashing of summoning order and complaint – Maintainability of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Revisional Jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy available – Objection of -- Held, in exercise of revisional power, Court of Sessions or the High Court is not vested with the power of quashing a criminal complaint -- This power is available to the High Court alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice -- Thus, the prayer made in this petition could not have been granted by the revisional Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Court of Sessions in the first instance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Offence by Company – Liability of Director of the Company – Quashing of Complaint and summoning order -- Averment made in the legal notice “You address No. 3 being Chairman/Director of addressee No. 1 are also being incharge and being responsible person of address No. 1 company for conduct to the business of the Company are also liable for the punishment prescribed under the Act ibid.” – Held, averments made in the legal notice u/s 138 of the Act cannot be construed to be averments made in the complaint -- Even the averments made in the legal notice, do not fulfill the requirement of law -- Summoning orders as well as Complaints alongwith consequential proceedings having arisen therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Admission of signature on cheque – Effect of -- Since the respondent-accused has not denied his signature on the cheque in question, nor led any evidence in defence to this effect, therefore, applicant is granted leave to file the instant appeal -- Respondent is held guilty for commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act -- Matter is referred back to the trial Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent on the quantum of sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Complainant admitted that the accused had taken a loan from the finance company and he has returned the same and, thereafter, again he had taken loan of Rs. 11,000/- and returned the same – Complainant has failed to explain in his complaint and the legal notice as to when and for what purpose, the amount of Rs.70,000/- was taken by the accused, specially when in the complaint neither any date, month, year nor the purpose is mentioned – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal against the judgment is declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2018

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- No document to show the loan transaction -- No particulars at which place and in whose presence the amount was given; whether it was given in cash or through cheque -- Nothing on record as to when the demand was raised; whether any security document was obtained -- Father of the accused filed a written complaint against the complainant to take action for breaking the glass of the car etc. -- When the relations between complainant and accused families were strained and the complaint was filed against the complainant and that was pending, it is improbable that the complainant will give a loan of Rs.3,63,000/- to the accused without even getting any receipt or security document -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence and the accused had raised a probable defence and the presumption was rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.08.2018

Section 311 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Affidavit in evidence – Wrong date of cheque mentioned – Re-examination of -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed -- Complainant allowed to appear as a witness and submit a fresh affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2018

Section 320 (6), 401 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused – Compromise/Compounding of offence -- Accused is acquitted from all the charges framed against him, in view of Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C., which provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 16.01.2018

Section 391 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Additional evidence -- Expert-examination – Application for additional evidence, which was filed for examination of a Hand-writing Expert to compare the writing on the body of the cheque, which has been asserted by the petitioner to have not been written by him does not have any material significance especially when the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 12.01.2018

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Legal enforceable liability -- Money lending license – Onus of proof -- Appeal against acquittal – From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Accused has led sufficient evidence to prove that he is a sole proprietor of the firm M/s Pardeep Kumar and he had issued the cheque to the firm, namely, M/s Ganpati Fabrics, which is proprietorship concern of the son of the applicant – Held, trial Court has rightly held that neither the complainant has pleaded in his complaint that the accused has issued the cheque in discharge of his liability of third person with the proprietor of concern `Textile' nor there is any evidence, in support thereof -- It has come in the statement of the complainant himself that M/s Ganpati Fabrics is the proprietorship firm of his son and that the accused concern was having business dealing with the concern M/s Ganpati Fabrics -- Therefore, the version given by the accused is more probable that he has no existing legal liability towards the complainant-`Textile' – Acquittal of the accused is just and proper – Application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 21.09.2017

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Section 357, 389, 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and compensation for amount of cheques in question – Accused preferred an appeal -- Suspension of sentence given, with a direction to accused-appellant to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation amount – Accused is aggrieved by such condition – Held, no merit in the revision petition, rather the same is not maintainable -- Appellate Court is justified in imposing any term or condition while suspending the sentence of the accused-appellant, rather the Appellate Court showed indulgence to the accused appellant by asking him to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation only, instead of the complete one -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which might have called for interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2017

Section 391 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case --Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence regarding filing of similar complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the complainant against some other persons was well within the knowledge of the respondent, but he did not make any effort to lead any evidence to that effect before the trial Court itself at the time of his defence evidence – Application should not have been allowed by the Ld. Appellate court.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Section 391 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Additional evidence at appellate stage -- In application pleading that he was not well-conversant with the technicalities of law and even his earlier counsel also did not give him proper advice and as such due to the negligence of his previous counsel, he could not produce the certified copies of the complaints as well as copy of the FIR – Held, respondent cannot be permitted to take the said pleas.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Section 391 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Additional evidence -- Bearing on the case -- Production of copies of complaints, judgments and the FIR so to be lodged by the respondent by way of additional evidence has no material bearing on the facts of the case inasmuch as each case has to be decided on its own merits -- Judgments of other cases may not influence while deciding a particular case and cannot be a guiding factor as each case has its own peculiar facts.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 17.07.2017 Pronounced on: 27.07.2017

Section 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Absence of accused – Non-bailable warrant – Anticipatory bail -- Accused remained absent without any intimation to the trial Court that is why the trial Court forfeited his surety and issued non-bailable warrants -- Without finding any fault with the order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, looking to the peculiar facts that the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is involved and the case being u/s 138 NI Act, there is no point to put the petitioner in custody – Non-bailable warrant set-aside, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the bail bonds earlier furnished by him before the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Section 320 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Cheque bounce case – Compounding of -- Enactment in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being the special law would prevail over general law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Section 320(6) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 141, 143, 147 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 41 – Cheque bounce case – Compounding of -- Liabilities created by Sections 138, 139, 141 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in contemplation with an offence otherwise not contemplated by Indian Penal Code -- Therefore, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would prevail over the scheme including Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Section 320, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Cheque bounce case – Compounding of -- Whether after availing statutory remedies and after having remained unsuccessful therein, the petitioner can file petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for quashing of the complaint on the basis of compromise without surrendering before the Court at first point of time -- Held, factum of not surrendering would not affect the right of the petitioner -- Filing of petition on the basis of compromise even despite loosing the remedy in hierarchy is maintainable – Impugned judgement passed by Courts below are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Vicarious liability – Quashing of complaint -- Contention that the cheque in question not issued and signed by petitioner – Fact of complaint are that he was director and authorized signatory and the firm issued cheque in question and upon presentation it was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” – Held, the petitioner has been summoned in view of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which imposes vicarious liability upon every person who at the time of offence was in charge of conducting the business of the company – No ground to quash the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well reasoned order of summoning.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.05.2017

Section 311 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Cross-examination of complainant – Re-calling the witness – Petitioner-company seeks to recall the complainant on one date to cross examine, whether the amount in discharge of which the cheques in question in favour of the respondent has been issued finds reflection in his accounts/income tax returns – Held, examination of the complainant on the afore issue would have a bearing on the adjudication of the dispute between the parties -- Application under Section 311 Cr. P.C to recall allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Quashing of -- Loan agreement nowhere shows that cheques in question have been taken by the respondent as security cheques -- Whether the respondent has taken blank signed cheques as security or post-dated cheques for payment of loan installments in case of default as security is to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it -- Finding of fact cannot be given at this stage by High Court without any evidence – No ground is made out for quashing the complaints.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.05.2017

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Arbitration clause -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Quashing of -- Contention that there is arbitration clause in the agreement, therefore, complaints are not maintainable – Held, this argument has no force -- When the cheques have been dishonoured and returned back unpaid by the Bank and legal notices have been sent, then non-payment of the amount within prescribed period gave cause of action to file the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.05.2017

Section 311 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Cheque bounce case -- Application for additional witness -- Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Section 357(3), 421(1), 431 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 70 – Cheque bounce case – Compensation not paid – Default sentence undergone -- Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Section 427, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Discretion to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the lower Appellate Court or by the revisional Court at the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction -- It will not be open for a person to seek such discretion by moving an application under Sections 427 and 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Section 427, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Concurrent sentences -- Concurrent sentences can be awarded in case of single transaction as a rule of thumb, but the same may not apply, if the transactions relating to the offences are different and the facts constituting to offences are also different -- If the accused is habitual of committing acts repeatedly and is found guilty on various counts and is found to be a menace to the society, then the term of consecutive sentences should be given as per the ratio of K. Prabhakaran's case 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 667.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Section 427, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in – Concurrent sentences -- Benefit of -- There are numerous complaints of different complainants in respect of different cheques issued from different accounts of different Banks -- Though the complaints were decided by the same Court vide judgment and order of the even date, but the same cannot be treated to be of single transaction -- Involvement in numerous complaints is indicative of the fact the he is habitual offender – Held, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of running of sentences concurrently in terms of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Section 427, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Admission of liability in court – Challenge to finding on merit – Held, once the statement was made by the accused petitioner before the lower Appellate Court, acknowledging the due payments towards him, thereafter, he cannot be allowed to breath hot and cold in the same breadth to allege that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is illegal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Section 82, 438, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Revisional jurisdiction -- In revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate evidence like Court of an appeal -- Nothing has been argued to show that how the concurrent findings given by the Courts below are perverse or against the evidence or law -- Nothing has been pointed out which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below -- Findings have been given after appreciating and reappreciating the evidence correctly and in right perspective -- Conviction passed by both the Courts below are correct, as per law and do not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Section 427 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Concurrent running of sentence -- All the cheques have been given in the same transaction and the parties are the same, therefore, applications praying for concurrence of sentence in all the cases allowed -- Sentences in all the cases ordered to run concurrently -- However, the sentence of payment of compensation and in default thereof, in each case, is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise at revisional stage – Acquittal in -- Revision is allowed on the basis of the compromise – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellate court as well as the trial Court set aside -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.03.2017

Section 319 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning as additional accused -- Persons sought to be summoned never signed the cheque in question, the pleadings qua them being responsible persons of respondent No.1 are also missing in the complaint, nor there was any process issued in terms of legal notice to them before filing of the complaint -- Merely because persons were the authorized signatories of accused No.1, they cannot be summoned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.03.2017

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Capacity to pay – Rebuttal of presumption – Leave to appeal -- Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted even from the case of the complainant -- Complainant was a student till 2005 -- Nothing has been shown from where he was earning and advanced such an huge amount of Rs.2,80,000/- -- Capacity to lend such an huge amount has also not been shown by leading cogent evidence -- Complainant stated in his evidence that he borrowed some amount from his relative but none of the relative has been examined to prove this fact -- Court below found that presumption u/s 139 has been rebutted -- Held, in no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence – No ground made out for grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 142 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused -- Leave to appeal -- No date has been mentioned as to when the loan was given to the accused -- There is no document on record to show these loan transactions -- There is nothing in the complaints as to when the loan was demanded back by the complainants from the accused -- There are no particulars of liability of any type in the complaints – On the other hand, the accused has raised probable defence – No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Complaint through attorney -- Acquittal in -- Complainant himself has not appeared in the witness box and his attorney appeared -- Ld. trial Court held that power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath on behalf of the complainant if he had witnessed the transaction or had knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused -- Attorney himself admitted in his cross-examination that “It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the present case” -- No date, month or year of the transaction had been mentioned by the complainant -- No document on record to show the transaction between the parties -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court -- Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal in -- Court below after appreciating the evidence held that the accused was neither relative nor close friend -- It looks unnatural that the amount has been paid without any interest without getting any document executed like receipt etc. -- No security document has been taken by the complainant while advancing the loan of Rs.1,12,000/- -- Otherwise also, it also looks unnatural that on the same date the accused will issue three cheques instead of one for paying Rs.1,12,000/- -- Complainant while appearing as CW-1 in cross-examination has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- as loan -- In the complaint, no date and month had been mentioned when the amount was paid -- No document on record to show the loan transaction -- Accused has been rightly acquitted – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal in – Friendly loan amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- to the accused – However, there is no evidence that the complainant had the capacity to advance Rs.11,30,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the respondent is shown in the Income Tax Return – Respondent-accused stated that the appellant had misused the cheque which he gave to his (appellant) brother, this fact is duly proved by the statement of independent witness -- Except self serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of advancement of loan – Ld. Trial Court acquitted the respondent -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Death of complainant – Evidence of complainant’s wife -- Acquittal of accused -- Not a single document to show loan transaction -- Complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his wife appeared as CW-1 but she was not knowing anything about the loan transaction nor it had taken place in her presence -- Cheque was not given by the accused in her presence to complainant (since deceased) -- Nothing on record to show the source of income -- Signatures on the cheque are in blue ink whereas the amount, date and body of the cheque had been filled with black ink -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to prove the loan transaction – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque amounting to Rs.2.5 lacs -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Cheque book issued to another firm -- Cheque was returned back unpaid with the remarks “account closed” – Even if it is taken that the cheque had been drawn by the accused, it was not drawn from the account of the accused -- One of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing -- No ground to grant leave to file appeal – Application dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Cheque signed by non-account holder – Offence u/s 420 IPC -- Acquittal of – Held, one of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing – Offence u/s 138 of NI Act is not made out – Neither the complaint has been filed u/s 420 IPC nor there is any averment in the complaint proving the ingredient of Section 420 IPC – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of -- No document on record to show that the accused had either signed on any document after taking the advanced amount -- Accused was employee of the complainant and he left the job in March 2012, but cheque is of March 2013 i.e. after one year -- Defence taken by the accused that he was the employee and the blank cheques had been taken at the time of joining the complainant-firm is probable one -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- No merit in the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal, the same is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal – Appellant secured loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from one person and handed over to the accused -- However, there is no evidence that said person had the capacity to advance Rs.2,00,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the appellant is shown in the Income Tax Return or in any other record maintained by said person -- Appellant has not even examined that person -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Except self-serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of legally enforceable debt of the respondent towards appellant – No oral or documentary evidence to prove the advancement of loan – In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in accused’s favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible – Keeping in view the above, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Single default in appearance -- Dismissed in default – Leave to appeal -- It is settled law that the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail – Order dismissing the complaint in default is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Loan/Cheque of Rs.18 lacs – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted -- No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan by father – Cheque by son – Acquittal in – In complaint no liability against accused – No evidence on record to show that accused ever stood surety or given in writing any undertaking to repay the loan of his father – Branch Manager admitted that no loan was taken by the accused – Cheque in question issued by the accused is not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt against the State – No ground to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2017

Section 427 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Singular transaction -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Loan of Rs.5 lacs each on two different dates – Two transactions, though undertaken at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction -- Imperative essentiality of a single transaction as the decisive factor to enable the Court to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous one -- Direction for concurrent running of sentence would be limited to the substantive sentence alone – Substantive sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaints would run concurrently – Default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has not been paid by him would run consecutively.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2016

Section 427 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Singular transaction -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Loan of Rs.5 lacs each on two different dates – Two transactions, though undertaken at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction -- Imperative essentiality of a single transaction as the decisive factor to enable the Court to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous one -- Direction for concurrent running of sentence would be limited to the substantive sentence alone – Substantive sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaints would run concurrently – Default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has not been paid by him would run consecutively.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2016

Section 427 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Two complaints by different complainants u/s 138 of NI Act – Concurrent running of sentence -- In both case one year sentence besides fine was passed –Sentence ordered to be run concurrently -- However, the fine imposed by the trial Court and its default clause are maintained in both the cases.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2016

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Post dated security cheque – Dishonour of – Offence u/s 138 of NI Act – Quashing of Complaint -- Reference to the complaint shows that as per the case of the complainant, the cheques which were subject matter of the said complaint were towards the partial repayment of the dues under the loan agreement – While dealing with a quashing petition, the Court has ordinarily to proceed on the basis of averments in the complaint -- Defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage -- Court considering the prayer for quashing does not adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.09.2016

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of – Leave to appeal -- Cheque amounting to Rs.5 lacs -- No date, month or years has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- Neither the place where the loan was given nor any fact has been mentioned as to in whose presence, the loan was given -- Even no security document has been taken from the accused at the time of granting loan nor receipt was taken -- No document of any type has been placed on record to show the loan transaction and withdrawal of huge amount from any bank etc. -- Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted -- No ground to grant leave to the applicant to file an appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

Section 378 (4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of -- Post dated cheques – Stipulation in the sale deed itself shows that if the post dated cheques are not encashed in time then without the intervention of the Court, the sale deed shall be deemed to be cancelled – Thereafter compromise arrived between the parties to the effect that the post dated cheques were to be returned by the complainant to the accused, which apparently he did not return -- It was also mentioned in the sale deed that in case cheques are not encashed by the seller, he shall be entitled to 28% of the developed land – Held, post dated cheques, issued at the time of sale deed, were not for discharge of legal debt or liability -- As such, offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act is not made out -- Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal in -- Rebuttal of presumption – Leave to appeal -- In the reply to legal notice, the accused has specifically mentioned that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant and not Rs.4 lacs and the cheque was handed over to the complainant as security cheque – Nothing in the complaint or in the evidence as to on which date and in which month and year, what amount was given to the accused as loan -- It was necessary, specifically, when the accused is alleging that he has taken loan of Rs.10,000/- only -- One pen has been used for signing the cheque, other pen has been used for putting the date on the cheque and third pen has been used for filling the amount in words as well as in figure -- No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Section 311, 399, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Summon to witness u/s 311 of Cr.P.c. -- Intermediatory order -- Inherent Powers of High Court – Revision -- Maintainability of -- Complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order -- In the scheme of hierarchy, the party should seek invocation from the lowest court if there is concurrent jurisdiction -- Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal in – Leave to appeal -- No agreement to sell for harvesting combine -- No document regarding ownership of the harvesting combine -- Nothing on the record regarding the payment of Rs.10 lacs by the complainant to the accused – Accused has also appeared as defence witness and stated that she had litigation with “AS” and after received full and final payment he withdrew the complaint and complainant misused the cheque by taking the same from “AS” – In cross-examination, the accused admitted that he has taken cheque from “AS” – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to show the capacity of the complainant to pay such a huge amount -- Amount in question has not been shown in the income tax return nor bank record has been produced to show from where this amount has been withdrawn – Finding of Trial Court acquitting the accused upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Section 256 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Case transfer to another court -- Dismiss in default for non appearance of complainant – Permissibility of -- When the case has been transferred to another Court, it was the obligation of the Court to have ensured that the complainant has been given due notice of the transfer of his case – Ld. Court below has not only acted in a haste but has also denied due justice to the appellant -- Impugned order, set aside directing the Court below to restore the complaint and to proceed ahead into the matter as per law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

Section 256 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Dismiss in default for non appearance of complainant – Permissibility of -- Complainant had been appearing spanning over a period of almost three years and the Court having recorded the preliminary evidence passed summoning orders against the accused finding prima facie allegations to summon him for the commission of this offence, and who apparently had been evading his appearance for almost a period of two years -- Held, there was no necessity for the presence of the complainant on the date when the impugned order for dismissing in default was passed as it was the duty of the Court to have procured the presence of the accused in fulfillment of its summoning orders – It was not appropriate and correct exercise of the powers envisaged under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Complaint restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

Section 360 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 3 -- Cheque bounce case – Probation to convict in cheque bounce case -- Conviction upheld, however convict released on probation by Appellate Court – Order upheld by High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.12.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent/accused -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- No document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2015

Section 202 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Postponement of issue of process -- Provisions of section 202 of Cr.P.c. are not applicable to the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Section 427 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Concurrent running of sentences -- Basic thumb rule is that concurrent sentences are to be awarded in a case of single transaction -- It is only in those circumstances when different transactions relating to offences are involved, sentences may not be allowed to run concurrently – Held, there is only one transaction i.e. storage of paddy and misappropriation thereof -- Prosecution has invoked two different remedies available with it i.e. registration of FIR u/s 420/406 IPC and to invoke proceedings in complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Sentence in complaint u/s 138 NI Act is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in FIR case. Jang Singh’s case 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Petitioners had approached the Court primarily on the ground that the directors had resigned from the company -- The fact is disputed by the other side -- Petitioners failed to place on record the certified copies of Form-32 -- High Court is not inclined to go into that matter in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Offence by Company – Quashing of complaint -- Petitioners have not placed on record the memorandum or articles of association to show who were the working Directors -- Directors are aware of the affairs of the company and it would be a matter of evidence which would be led at the trial – At this stage, the specific allegations in the complaint are enough – High Court is not inclined to go into that matter in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case – Offence by Company – Quashing of complaint -- Petitioners have not placed on record the memorandum or articles of association to show who were the working Directors -- Directors are aware of the affairs of the company and it would be a matter of evidence which would be led at the trial – At this stage, the specific allegations in the complaint are enough – High Court is not inclined to go into that matter in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- No particulars were given as to when and how much amount has been given, no dates, months and years have been mentioned in the complaint -- When the complainant came into witness box, he took totally different stand by stating that the amount has been given to the accused by way of cheque of Rs.3 lacs – In statement of accounts no such entry regarding the withdrawal of sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of cheque has been specifically pointed out by the complainant -- Complainant also failed to prove source of such a huge amount -- Statement of complainant is contradictory to the version given in the complaint -- Complainant is working as commission agent, he has not produced on record his account books to show entry regarding advancement of loan to the accused -- Rather, in cross-examination, he has stated that he has not reflected the said amount in books of account -- Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been duly rebutted by the accused – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- No ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Section 372, 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Appeal before Session Court – Maintainability of -- Complainant could have approached High Court seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court -- However, the appeal before the Sessions Court was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2015

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – If a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible. C. Antony’s case 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque not supported by pronote or receipt – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent -- No date, month or year was mentioned that when the accused borrowed the money -- It is highly improbable that applicant advanced an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the accused without any receipt or pronote -- There is no document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Debt of Chit fund business – Legally enforceability of – Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Transaction pertains to the year 2002, however the cheque in question is dated 15.09.2008 – A complaint was also made to the police station with regard to non-return of cheque after clearance of debt -- Once the accused himself moved a complaint against the applicant/ complainant then the story of issuance of cheque is not sustainable -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the applicant – Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2015

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142(b) -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act within 15 days of notice of demand – Maintainability of – Quashing of -- Complaint was premature and not maintainable -- Impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings taken therein are quashed – Permission given to complainant to file fresh complaint within one month -- Delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Legal enforceable liability – Time barred debt -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Loan of 32 lacs without any receipt or pronote – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent from his bank account or from any other source -- In the absence of any document that the applicant had the alleged amount with him, it is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.32 lacs to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record – Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2015

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Complaint against Directors of Company – Quashing of -- Averment in the complaint that accused nos. 3 to 10 were, in fact, in-charge of the day-to-day business of accused No. 1-company – High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings against such directors -- Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2015

Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Revisional jurisdiction -- In revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate evidence like Court of an appeal -- Nothing has been argued to show that how the concurrent findings given by the Courts below are perverse or against the evidence or law -- Nothing has been pointed out which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below -- Findings have been given after appreciating and reappreciating the evidence correctly and in right perspective -- Conviction passed by both the Courts below are correct, as per law and do not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Section 256 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Absence of complainant – Power of Magistrate -- Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint if on any date fixed for hearing the complainant fails to appear in the Court and at the same time, if the Magistrate finds that there is some reason or that the presence of the complainant was not required, he in his discretion can adjourn the complaint -- However, the Magistrate while acting under the said proviso has to take into consideration that the powers vested therein have to be exercised in the interest of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Section 256 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Non-appearance of complainant – Dismissal of complaint for non-want of prosecution -- Plea of wrong noting of date appears to be genuine -- Bona fide of the complainant is established from the fact that its representative had been appearing on each and every date -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Section 256 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Non-appearance of complainant – Case fixed for accused’s appearance – Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – Dismissal in default followed by restoration application unnecessarily delays the disposal of complaint on merits than simply adjourning the case for a date – Complaint was not listed for any particular purpose, rather it was fixed for presence of accused by way of notice and presence of appellant was not necessary on that date -- Merely on that account of non-appearance, the complaint should not have been dismissed in default -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Section 357(3) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Payment of Cheque amount – Settlement of dispute – Acquittal of accused -- Cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,30,000/- has already been paid to complainant -- Complainant has admitted the said fact -- There remains no dispute between the parties, High Court is left with no other option but to allow the petition -- Orders of conviction and sentence passed by the both the Courts below are set-aside -- Petitioners have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2015

Section 374 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Suspension of sentence by Appellate Court -- When notice in the appeal has already been issued, the Appellate Court should have normally passed the order for suspension of sentence as the prayer to that effect was not declined -- Direction issued to the Appellate Court to pass specific order on the prayer for suspension of sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2015

Section 311, 313 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Additional evidence -- After complainant’s evidence, statement u/s 313 of the accused, case was fixed for arguments -- Petitioner/complainant want to summon and examine the concerned Clerk/Record Keeper of the office of Excise and Taxation Officer along with the record submitted before the office with regard to purchase of peddy by the accused/company – Held, evidence is based on the record of the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer which cannot be manipulated by the complainant -- So there is no question of filling any lacuna and the resultant prejudice to the respondents -- Rather it will assist the Court to arrive at the just decision of the case – Application for additional evidence allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.03.2015

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Dismissed for want of prosecution – Case called several times but none has appeared and on that account, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution -- Cheque amount is stated to be Rs.10 lacs -- Nobody should be condemned unheard – Impugned order stands set-aside -- Complaint stands restored to its original number -- Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2015

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Agreement to sell property with sons of accused – Rs.8 lacs received by sons – No suit for specific performance filed by complainant – Complainant is in possession of property – Attorney of the complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that complainant had made a complaint to the police authorities, where a compromise was effected between the complainant and the respondent and in lieu of the said compromise, cheques in question had been issued by the accused – Compromise relied upon by the complainant was not duly proved on record -- Plea put-forth by the accused that the cheques in question had been got issued from him under fear and pressure, was believable -- Trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the cheques in question had not been issued for any existing liability – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.01.2015

Section 200, 204 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Power of attorney – Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without prima facie establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and whether it was in order – Complaint against the appellant was not preferred by the payee or the holder in due course and the statement on oath of the person who filed the complaint has also not stated that he filed the complaint having been instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque – Held, it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Section 200, 204 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Power of attorney – Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of, or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it exhibited as part of the said complaint -- In the list of evidence there is just a mere mention of the words “Power of Attorney”, however there is no date or any other particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint -- Even in the verification statement, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant -- Even the order of issue of process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney for issuing process – Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter and the Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant rather than the complainant -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Section 427 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Concurrent running of sentence -- Conviction in three complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Sentence qua imprisonment in two complaints filed by one complainant against the petitioner can be ordered to run concurrently -- Sentence in the complaint filed by other complainant forms a different transaction and the sentence qua imprisonment in the said case cannot be held to run concurrently – Concurrent running of sentence in two complaints shall be limited to the sentence qua imprisonment only and sentence which the petitioner has to undergo in default of payment of fine, shall not be effected by this direction and shall also not run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Section 378 (4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act -- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution -- Dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution has resulted in acquittal of the accused and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order by seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act -- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order of dismissal or say it differently, restoration of the complaint dismissed in default – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Section 378(4) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Leave to appeal -- Judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by High Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s 378(4) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Director of company – Resignation of – Dishonour of cheque – Liability of – Quashing of complaint -- One of the petitioner /accused / Director of company had resigned from the Company on 16.02.2013 and the Board of Directors have accepted her resignation on 18.02.2013 and the other had tendered his resignation on 21.02.2013 i.e before the cheque was issued -- Registrar of Companies was informed about resignation on 16.09.2013 and June, 2013 respectively -- This gap would not make the petitioners liable for dishonor of the cheques, which was presented on 27.05.2013 and was dishonored – Petitioners were not involved in day to day affairs of the company and no liability can be thus fastened upon them – Complaint and summoning order are quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Offence against Director of Company – Issuance of process – Quashing of Complaint -- Supreme Court summarized the law as follows: a) Once in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act the basic averment is made that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Magistrate can issue process against such Director; b) If a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of such a complaint by the Director, the High Court may, in the facts of a particular case, on an overall reading of the complaint, refuse to quash the complaint because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director. c) In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence or circumstances, complaint cannot be quashed; d) No restriction can be placed on the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the Court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry, but, nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary qua a particular Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court may quash the complaint despite the basic averment – It may come across some unimpeachable evidence or acceptable circumstances which may in its opinion lead to a conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time and therefore making him stand the trial would be abuse of the process of court as no offence is made out against him.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Offence against Director of Company -- Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors -- But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling uncontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention -- He must make out a case that making him stand the trial would be abuse of the process of court -- He cannot get the complaint quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role, because ordinarily the basic averment would be sufficient to send him to trial and it could be argued that his further role could be brought out in the trial -- Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter -- Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking -- For quashing of a complaint it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Section 427 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction in two complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Concurrent running of sentences – Accused convicted in two separate complaints for 1 year R.I. in each case – Both the complaints were decided by same Ld. C.J.M. on same day – Both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2014

Section 427 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act in two complaints -- Concurrent running of sentences – Accused convicted in two separate complaints for 1 year R.I. in each case – Both the complaints were decided by same Ld. C.J.M. on same day – Both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2014

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138(b), 142(b) – Dishonor of cheque – Delay in filing complaint – Condonation of delay -- Quashing of complaint by High court – Two communications, one a handwritten note and the other a formal legal notice issued by the advocate, were served on the accused calling upon him to pay the Cheque amounts – Before the Trial Court, the accused did not raise the issue of ‘limitation’ -- Issue was raised for the first time before the High Court in Section 482, Cr.P.C. proceedings -- High Court, considering the handwritten note sent by the appellant as ‘notice’ u/s 138 of the Act, came to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation – Held, High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation -- High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation – Matter remanded back to Trial Court – Liberty given to Complainant file application for condonation of delay.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Section 177 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque – Place for Commission of offence – Territorial jurisdiction to file complaint -- A reading of Section 138 N.I. Act in conjunction with Section 177, Cr.PC leaves no manner of doubt that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank alone constitutes the commission of the offence and indicates the place where the offence is committed -- Held, the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located -- Offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly the JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the Complaint must be filed, entertained and tried -- Place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the Complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the Complaints.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014

Section 177 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, Section 420 -- Dishonour of cheque – Place for Commission of offence –Territorial jurisdiction -- Remedies available to payee – Relief introduced by Section 138 of the N.I. Act is in addition to the contemplations in the IPC -- It is still open to such a payee recipient of a dishonoured cheque to lodge a FIR with the Police or file a Complaint directly before the concerned Magistrate -- If the payee succeeds in establishing that the inducement for accepting a cheque which subsequently bounced had occurred where he resides or ordinarily transacts business, he will not have to suffer the travails of journeying to the place where the cheque has been dishonoured -- All remedies under the IPC and Cr.PC are available to such a payee if he chooses to pursue this course of action, rather than a Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act – Payee can always file a suit for recovery wherever the cause of action arises dependent on his choosing.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014

Section 300(1) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Constitution of India, Article 20(1) -- Double jeopardy – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Second notice – Cause of action – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Maintainability of –Respondent issued notices, although, the notice was duly served, the Respondent did not take any steps to file the complaint within the period prescribed – Held, a cheque may be presented several times within the period of its validity, the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act arises but once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour of the cheque and the receipt thereof by the drawer – Ld. Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the complaints filed on the basis of the second notices, High Court also wrongly affirmed the same – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2010

Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22 – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – SICA proceedings -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Section only creates an embargo against disposal of assets of the company for recovery of its debts -- Purpose of such an embargo is to preserve the assets of the company from being attached or sold for realisation of dues of the creditors -- Section does not bar payment of money by the company or its directors to other persons for satisfaction of their legally enforceable dues -- Section 22 SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegations of an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act against a company or its Directors.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Section 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22-A – Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – Company declared Sick -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- In a case in which the BIFR has submitted its report declaring a company as ‘sick’ and has also issued a direction u/s 22-A restraining the company or its directors not to dispose of any of its assets except with consent of the Board then the contention raised that a criminal case for the alleged offence u/s 138 NI Act cannot be instituted during the period in which the restraint order passed by the BIFR remains operative cannot be rejected outright -- Whether the contention can be accepted or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case -- For instance, before the date on which the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days after notice, a restraint order of the BIFR u/s 22-A was passed against the company then it cannot be said that the offence u/s 138 NI Act was completed -- In such a case it may reasonably be said that the dishonoring of the cheque by the bank and failure to make payment of the amount by the company and/or its Directors is for reasons beyond the control of the accused -- In such circumstances it would be unjust and unfair and against the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the Directors should be compelled to face trial in a criminal case.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Cheque bounce case -- Power of attorney – Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of, or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it exhibited as part of the said complaint -- In the list of evidence there is just a mere mention of the words “Power of Attorney”, however there is no date or any other particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint -- Even in the verification statement, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant -- Even the order of issue of process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney for issuing process – Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter and the Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant rather than the complainant -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Power of attorney – Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without prima facie establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and whether it was in order – Complaint against the appellant was not preferred by the payee or the holder in due course and the statement on oath of the person who filed the complaint has also not stated that he filed the complaint having been instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque – Held, it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Delay of 4 days in filing of complaint – Condonation of delay -- Complaint was filed on 18.8.2009 -- Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process -- Notice of accusation was issued to accused on 14.2.2010 i.e. about six months later -- Case was then adjourned for the evidence of the complainant -- It was on 28.10.2011 i.e. nearly after one year and eight months of taking of cognizance of the complaint by the Court when the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant, that an application for condonation of delay of four days was filed – Whether when the complaint is fixed for the evidence of the complainant, it is to be treated as the cognizance stage? -- The obvious reply is 'NO' -- Ld. Court below fell in error when he took a view that application for condonation of delay can be filed at any stage -- Stage of cognizance of the complaint was already over much earlier and therefore, the complainant could not take the shelter of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2015

Cheque for repayment of loan -- No disclosure about the date of demand of loan and giving of loan in the complaint -- Accused has taken the defence from the very beginning that blank cheque was given to the complainant as security which was later on misused by the complainant -- Cheque has been filled in with different inks and different hand writings, rather admission clearly indicates that it was taken well in advance – Complainant was in a dominating position and had been advancing loans after getting their signatures on blank papers/cheques -- In fact, this is the mode adopted by the commission agents to always keep farmers in their clutches -- Since the complainant has admitted his relationship with the petitioner as commission agent and farmer, the complainant has withheld the best evidence with regard to sale of agricultural produce of the year by the accused – Accused is liable to be acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Loan business – Criminal liability – Acquittal of accused -- Case set up by the complainant is that he used to advance loan to agriculturalists, who sell or promise to sell their agricultural produce through him and interest was charged as per prevalent rate in the area of Mandi – Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Multiple complaints – Recommended that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences u/s 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code -- High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 5(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce case -- Offence by Company – Vicarious liability of Deputy General Manager -- A Deputy General Manger is not a person who is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company -- He does not fall under any of the categories (a) to (g) listed in section 5 of the Companies Act -- Therefore the question whether he was in charge of the business of the company or not, is irrelevant -- He cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141(1) of the Act -- If he has to be made liable u/s 141(2), the necessary averments relating to consent/connivance/negligence should have been made -- No such averment made -- Hence Deputy General Manger could not be prosecuted either u/s (1) or u/s (2) of Section 141 of the Act.

(SC) Decided on: 06.07.2009

Food adulteration case -- Nominated person held guilty – Remand to fill lacuna of case – In the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Default sentence undergone -- Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Prosecution based on a second or successive default in payment of the cheque amount is not impermissible simply because no statutory notice had been issued after the first default and no proceeding for prosecution had been initiated.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of Complaint -- Law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence was committed – High Court, in deciding a quashing petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- High Court must exercise its power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.

(SC) Decided on: 28.02.2019

Every person who was incharge of the business of the Company and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business is vicariously liable apart from the Company itself -- Such a person may be somebody other than a 'Director' so long as he is an officer of the Company -- However, an Ex-officio Director is not liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Liability of Director of the Company – Quashing of Complaint and summoning order -- Averment made in the legal notice “You address No. 3 being Chairman/Director of addressee No. 1 are also being incharge and being responsible person of address No. 1 company for conduct to the business of the Company are also liable for the punishment prescribed under the Act ibid.” – Held, averments made in the legal notice u/s 138 of the Act cannot be construed to be averments made in the complaint -- Even the averments made in the legal notice, do not fulfill the requirement of law -- Summoning orders as well as Complaints alongwith consequential proceedings having arisen therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Liability of Ex-officio Director -- Every person who was incharge of the business of the Company and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business is vicariously liable apart from the Company itself -- Such a person may be somebody other than a 'Director' so long as he is an officer of the Company -- However, an Ex-officio Director is not liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Quashing of Complaint and summoning order -- Averment made in the legal notice “You address No. 3 being Chairman/Director of addressee No. 1 are also being incharge and being responsible person of address No. 1 company for conduct to the business of the Company are also liable for the punishment prescribed under the Act ibid.” – Held, averments made in the legal notice u/s 138 of the Act cannot be construed to be averments made in the complaint -- Even the averments made in the legal notice, do not fulfill the requirement of law -- Summoning orders as well as Complaints alongwith consequential proceedings having arisen therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Summoning of Directors of the Company -- Held in order to reduce litigation it would be appropriate for the concerned Magistrates to seek copies of Form No. 32 and the latest Annual Return filed by the Company so that only those persons who are Directors on the date of commission of the offence are summoned – Directions given that in all cases where the accused is a 'Company', before issuing summons to the accused persons the trial Court/Magistrate shall direct the complainant to produce a copy of Form No. 32 and the annual Return filed by the Company in order to determine the persons, who were Directors on the date of commission of the offence -- In cases where the accused–Director is the Chairman or Managing Director or Joint Managing Director or authorized signatory of the cheque, they may be summoned without any averment regarding their role in the conduct of the affairs of the Company -- For summoning of any other Director or officer of the Company the necessary averment regarding their role in the conduct of the business of the Company, must be insisted upon -- In respect of whole time Directors, mere reproduction of the words of Section 141 of the Act would be sufficient.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Quashing of complaint -- Contention that the cheque in question not issued and signed by petitioner – Fact of complaint are that he was director and authorized signatory and the firm issued cheque in question and upon presentation it was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” – Held, the petitioner has been summoned in view of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which imposes vicarious liability upon every person who at the time of offence was in charge of conducting the business of the company – No ground to quash the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well reasoned order of summoning.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.05.2017

Vicarious liability – Incharge of conducting business -- Contention that the cheque in question not issued and signed by petitioner – Fact of complaint are that he was director and authorized signatory and the firm issued cheque in question and upon presentation it was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” – Held, the petitioner has been summoned in view of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which imposes vicarious liability upon every person who at the time of offence was in charge of conducting the business of the company – No ground to quash the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well reasoned order of summoning.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.05.2017

Acquittal of Director -- No mention that accused was in-charge of the respondent-Company and was responsible for the business and affairs of the company -- No averment in the complaint that accused was also responsible for the day to day business of the Company -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the Court below.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Vicarious liability – Acquittal of Director -- No mention that accused was in-charge of the respondent-Company and was responsible for the business and affairs of the company -- No averment in the complaint that accused was also responsible for the day to day business of the Company -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the Court below.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Criminal liability of Director/Executive Director – Averments put forth in complaint relating to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that they are whole-time Director and Executive Director and they were in charge of day to day affairs of the Company – High Court has fallen into grave error by coming to the conclusion that there are no specific averments in the complaint for issuance of summons against the said accused persons – Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Criminal liability of Director/Executive Director – Averments put forth in complaint relating to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that they are whole-time Director and Executive Director and they were in charge of day to day affairs of the Company – High Court has fallen into grave error by coming to the conclusion that there are no specific averments in the complaint for issuance of summons against the said accused persons – Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Vicarious liability – Offence by Company – Petitioners have not placed on record the memorandum or articles of association to show who were the working Directors -- Directors are aware of the affairs of the company and it would be a matter of evidence which would be led at the trial – At this stage, the specific allegations in the complaint are enough – High Court is not inclined to go into that matter in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Offence by Company -- Section 141 contains conditions which have to be satisfied before the liability can be extended to officers of a company -- Since the provision creates criminal liability, the conditions have to be strictly complied with -- Persons who had nothing to do with the matter need not be roped in -- Officers of a Company who are responsible for acts done in the name of the Company are sought to be made personally liable for acts which result in criminal action being taken against the Company -- It makes every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company, as well as the Company, liable for the offence – There is an escape route for persons who are able to 'prove' that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the offence -- Conclusion is inevitable that the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company -- Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Vicarious liability -- Section 138 casts criminal liability punishable with imprisonment or fine or with both on a person who issues a cheque towards discharge of a debt or liability as a whole or in part and the cheque is dishonoured by the Bank on presentation -- Section 141 extends such criminal liability in case of a Company to every person who at the time of the offence, was incharge of, and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company -- By a deeming provision contained in Section 141 of the Act, such a person is vicariously liable to be held guilty for the offence under Section 138 and punished accordingly.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of Complaint -- Averment in the complaint that accused nos. 3 to 10 were, in fact, in-charge of the day-to-day business of accused No. 1-company – High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings against such directors -- Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Quashing of -- Averment in the complaint that accused nos. 3 to 10 were, in fact, in-charge of the day-to-day business of accused No. 1-company – High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings against such directors -- Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.08.2015

Notice to drawer/Company/ Directors – Requirement of law -- Notice u/s 138 is required to be given to “the drawer” -- No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as being entitled to be issued such notice -- Section 141 states that if the person committing an offence u/s 138 is a Company, every director of such Company who was in charge of and responsible to that Company for conduct of its business shall also be deemed to be guilty – Section 141 again does not lay down any requirement that in such eventuality the directors must individually be issued separate notices u/s 138 -- No notice is additionally contemplated to be given to such directors -- Opportunity to the ‘drawer’ Company is considered good enough for those who are in charge of the affairs of such Company -- If it is their case that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent such commission, it would be a matter of defence to be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial and certainly not at the stage of notice under Section 138.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Quashing of complaint -- Offence by Company/Director – (i) In order to make the company liable u/s 138 of the Act vicariously, the Director can be prosecuted if there is specific recital that the Directors thereof were at the time when offence the offence committed, were responsible for the conduct and day to day business of the complaint -- Director, who had resigned long back before the cheque was presented cannot be prosecuted -- One of the Director in the array of accused was never Director of the company since its incorporation and still he has been arrayed as accused in the capacity of Director -- The certification to this effect is computerized information, which is perse admissible under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, rather this document has not been denied with reference to any evidence to the contrary. (ii) Averments even if made in the complaint that the Director was in-charge, the same can be negated if the High Court comes across some unimpeachable/acceptable circumstance, which may lead to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and therefore, making such Director as an accused to stand trial would be an abuse of process of law. (iii) It is mandatory in terms of Section 138 and 141 of the Act to specifically aver in the complaint that Director was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, when the offence was committed and he was responsible for day to day functioning of the company -- Role of the Director in a company is a question of fact depending upon the nomenclature of the company and other circumstances prevailing therein -- There cannot be any universal application of the rule that a Director of company is in-charge of its day to day affairs. (iv) Section 141 of the Act is a penal provision creating criminal liability -- As per nature of the offence it has to be strictly construed -- It is not sufficient to make bald cursory statement in a complaint that Director/Directors is/are in-charge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without specifying anything more as to the role of the Director/Directors -- It is requirement of law that the complainant must spell out as to how and in what manner the accused are in-charge of the affairs of the company in the conduct of its business and thus responsible for the same. (v) Some times a Director is not the active Director and he may be non executive Director, who was no doubt a custodian of governance of the company, but at the same time was not involved in day to day affairs running of its business -- For making such a Director liable there must have been specific averment in the complaint as to how and in what manner such a Director was responsible for conduct of business of the company -- In the absence of such plea the Court can definitely come to rescue of such Director against whom the proceedings are nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. (vi) “no criminal proceedings shall be initiated against the Director/accused unless specific allegations should comeforth in complaint, earmarking unambiguous role in the context of charge and responsibility in discharge of day to functioning of the company so as to prevent embarking on a fishing expedition to try and unearth material against the Director. Complaint is liable to quashed being abuse of process of law and is deficient in formulising vicarious liability of the petitioners in terms of Section 141 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.04.2015

Quashing of complaint u/s 138 NI Act -- One of the petitioner /accused / Director of company had resigned from the Company on 16.02.2013 and the Board of Directors have accepted her resignation on 18.02.2013 and the other had tendered his resignation on 21.02.2013 i.e before the cheque was issued -- Registrar of Companies was informed about resignation on 16.09.2013 and June, 2013 respectively -- This gap would not make the petitioners liable for dishonor of the cheques, which was presented on 27.05.2013 and was dishonored – Petitioners were not involved in day to day affairs of the company and no liability can be thus fastened upon them – Complaint and summoning order are quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Process against Director -- So far as Directors who are not signatories to the cheques or who are not Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors are concerned, it is necessary to aver in the complaint filed u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company -- This is a basic requirement -- There is no deemed liability of such Directors -- It is the basic and essential averment which persuades the Magistrate to issue process against the Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of Complaint -- Issuance of process against Company/Directors -- Supreme Court summarized the law as follows: a) Once in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act the basic averment is made that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Magistrate can issue process against such Director; b) If a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of such a complaint by the Director, the High Court may, in the facts of a particular case, on an overall reading of the complaint, refuse to quash the complaint because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director. c) In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence or circumstances, complaint cannot be quashed; d) No restriction can be placed on the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the Court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry, but, nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary qua a particular Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Offence against Director of Company -- When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors -- But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling uncontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention -- He must make out a case that making him stand the trial would be abuse of the process of court -- He cannot get the complaint quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role, because ordinarily the basic averment would be sufficient to send him to trial and it could be argued that his further role could be brought out in the trial -- Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter -- Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking -- For quashing of a complaint it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Process against Director -- So far as Directors who are not signatories to the cheques or who are not Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors are concerned, it is necessary to aver in the complaint filed u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Directors were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company -- This is a basic requirement -- There is no deemed liability of such Directors -- It is the basic and essential averment which persuades the Magistrate to issue process against the Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – Cheque of the Company -- It is necessary for a complainant to state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company -- Although, no particular form for making such an allegation is prescribed but a reading of the complaint should show that the substance of the accusation discloses that the accused person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- There is no specific or even a general allegation made against the appellants -- Complaint against the appellants deserves dismissal.

(SC) Decided on: 25.03.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability – General allegations -- There is no specific or even a general allegation made against the appellants -- Complaint against the appellants deserves dismissal.

(SC) Decided on: 25.03.2014

Vicarious liability – There is no specific or even a general allegation made against the appellants -- Complaint against the appellants deserves dismissal.

(SC) Decided on: 25.03.2014

Quashing of complaint -- Complaint was premature and not maintainable -- Impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings taken therein are quashed – Permission given to complainant to file fresh complaint within one month -- Delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint – Mother of the Applicant-complainant appeared as his general attorney after due permission from the Court on acceptance of her application to permit her to file complaint and pursue the same as attorney -- Maintainability of the complaint is well-proved on the record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Proprietorship firm -- Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- Application for additional witness -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Knowledge -- Complainant himself has not appeared in the witness box and his attorney appeared -- Ld. trial Court held that power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath on behalf of the complainant if he had witnessed the transaction or had knowledge regarding the transaction between the complainant and the accused -- Attorney himself admitted in his cross-examination that “It is correct that I have no personal knowledge about the present case” -- No date, month or year of the transaction had been mentioned by the complainant -- No document on record to show the transaction between the parties -- Accused has been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court -- Judgment passed by the learned trial Court is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of, or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it exhibited as part of the said complaint -- In the list of evidence there is just a mere mention of the words “Power of Attorney”, however there is no date or any other particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint -- Even in the verification statement, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant -- Even the order of issue of process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney for issuing process – Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter and the Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant rather than the complainant -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Power of -- Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without prima facie establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and whether it was in order – Complaint against the appellant was not preferred by the payee or the holder in due course and the statement on oath of the person who filed the complaint has also not stated that he filed the complaint having been instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque – Held, it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance -- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Complaint was filed by one claiming to be General Power of Attorney of the complainant company – Complaint was not signed either by Managing Director or Director of the Company -- PW-1/R gave evidence on behalf of company who is only the employee of the Company -- As per Resolution of the Company i.e. Ex.P3 Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution and they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc. -- But nothing on the record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company -- Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence -- At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court –Employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company/ PW-1 gave evidence as if he knows everything though he does not know anything -- Nothing on the record to suggest that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any Director -- Magistrate rightly acquitted the appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2015

Hypothecated vehicle sold by Bank -- Ld. J.M.I.C., while acquitting the accused held that GPA were neither filed in original nor were duly registered, as such were not admissible in evidence – Court also held that when after the sanction of alleged loan, the Bank seized the vehicle and sold the same and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the amount repayable by the accused, then the accused/borrower was not guilty under an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act for dishonour of post dated cheques – Held, findings given by learned JMIC, are correct, as per law and cannot be held as illegal or perverse.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2015

Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Premature complaint -- Maintainability of – Quashing of -- Complaint was premature and not maintainable -- Impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings taken therein are quashed – Permission given to complainant to file fresh complaint within one month -- Delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2015

Proprietorship Firm not made party – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order –Complaint reveals that the sole proprietary concern has not been arrayed as an accused, but only its sole proprietor has been arrayed as an accused – Petition allowed complaint u/s of the N.I. Act as well as, the summoning order both are quashed and set aside.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.08.2022 Pronounced on: 26.08.2022

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Substantive obligation -- Prospective in nature -- Section 143-A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby effect the substantive right of the accused -- Amendment is not applicable retrospectively, to pending cases; which arose from the default of the accused which has taken place before coming into force of this provision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Prospective in nature -- Section 143-A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby effect the substantive right of the accused -- Since the Amendment Act has not made the provision applicable retrospectively, specifically, to pending cases, hence, it cannot be applied retrospectively, to pending cases; which arose from the default of the accused which has taken place before coming into force of this provision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019

Recovery of money under cheque -- A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc. -- Section 138 of the NI Act is a penal provision the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on proof of the guilt in a duly conducted criminal proceedings -- Once the offence u/s 138 is completed the prosecution proceedings can be initiated not for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque but for bringing the offender to the penal liability.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2000

Compromise at the stage of High Court -- In a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect – Competent Court can reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance -- Petitioner being a poor person, ends of justice would be met, if the requirement of deposit of 15% of the cheque amount is reduced to 10% of the cheque amount -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charges subject to deposit of 10% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Compromise after conviction – Cheque amount paid -- Sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Conviction of accused – Accused is acquitted from all the charges framed against him, in view of Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C., which provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 16.01.2018

Sentence already undergone -- Taking into consideration the argument raised for the petitioners to the effect that he is not seeking acquittal, rather, since petitioner has undergone more than half of his sentence and a compromise has also been entered between the parties, Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the substantive sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.09.2017

Liabilities created by Sections 138, 139, 141 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in contemplation with an offence otherwise not contemplated by Indian Penal Code -- Therefore, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would prevail over the scheme including Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Non-surrender of accused -- Whether after availing statutory remedies and after having remained unsuccessful therein, the petitioner can file petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for quashing of the complaint on the basis of compromise without surrendering before the Court at first point of time -- Held, factum of not surrendering would not affect the right of the petitioner -- Filing of petition on the basis of compromise even despite loosing the remedy in hierarchy is maintainable – Impugned judgement passed by Courts below are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Other law -- Enactment in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being the special law would prevail over general law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Compounding of Seven cases u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Total amount of Cheques i.e. Rs.10,68,650/- paid and complainant has not objection in compounding of case – Petitioner shall together in all the seven cases pay compensatory non-refundable costs of Rs.50,000/- with the office of Deputy Commissioner within 15 days -- Conviction orders quashed by way of compounding/compromise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.05.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Compromise at revisional stage – Acquittal in Cheque bounce case – Revision is allowed on the basis of the compromise – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellate court as well as the trial Court set aside -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.03.2017

Conviction of accused -- Amount of Rs.30,000/- paid to complainant in revision – Conviction order set aside and petitioner ordered to be released on deposit of 15% amount i.e. Rs.4500/- in Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.02.2017

Compounding of offence after conviction -- Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 851 has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect – As the matter has been finally settled and the liability is discharged and the petitioner has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, necessary permission to compound the offence u/s 138 of the Act is granted -- Conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Compromise at the stage of High Court -- Compounding charges reduced from 15% to 10% -- In a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect – Competent Court can reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance -- Petitioner being a poor person, ends of justice would be met, if the requirement of deposit of 15% of the cheque amount is reduced to 10% of the cheque amount -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charges subject to deposit of 10% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2016

Stage of case -- Offence, as per the statutory provision of law contained in NI Act itself, is compoundable at every stage of litigation -- Once the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the complainant has received the agreed amount, conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained any further – Amicable settlement arrived between the parties -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2015

Accused paid the cheque amount alongwith 6% interest per annum to complainant -- Compounding is allowed on deposit of costs @ 7.5% instead of 15% of cheque amount.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Compromise by accused in cheque bounce case -- Denial of -- Effect of -- Statement of the accused given before Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge that he has compromised with the complainant and he will pay the amount to the complainant – Held, in no way on the basis of this statement the accused can be convicted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Compromise after 10 years of litigation -- A sum of Rs.69 lakhs paid to the complainant -- Looking to the quantification of default amount, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months.

(SC) Decided on: 18.10.2022

Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Setting aside of conviction and sentence -- As per settlement, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs against the disputed amount as full and final settlement -- When the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the conviction and sentence of the accused, u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, can be set aside -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence as well as judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2018

Considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and no other litigation is pending between them, the permission granted to compound the offence under the provisions of Section 147 of the N.I. Act -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, as well as judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.08.2018

Accused is acquitted from all the charges framed against him, in view of Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C., which provides that a High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this Section.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 16.01.2018

Amount of Rs.30,000/- paid to complainant in revision – Conviction order set aside and petitioner ordered to be released on deposit of 15% amount i.e. Rs.4500/- in Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.02.2017

Compounding of offence after conviction -- Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s case 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 851 has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect – As the matter has been finally settled and the liability is discharged and the petitioner has also deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, necessary permission to compound the offence u/s 138 of the Act is granted -- Conviction and order of sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.03.2016

Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Cheque amount as well as charges deposited by convict/ accused -- Offence is permitted to be compounded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.12.2019

Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Compounding of offence after conviction -- A sum of Rs.69 lakhs paid to the complainant -- Looking to the quantification of default amount, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months.

(SC) Decided on: 18.10.2022

Reduction of sentence -- Cheque amounting Rs.4,58,000/- -- Sentenced to R.I. for one year, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case default sentence of one month -- Conduct of the petitioner is extremely disturbing, firstly, did not appear at the time the Appeal was pending before the ASJ and was declared a proclaimed offender and was released on interim bail -- Petitioner continued as such for a period of approximately three years -- When the matter came up for hearing before High Court, an assurance was given that he would surrender and file a revision petition, however the petitioner was untraceable -- No mitigating circumstances for reducing his sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Conviction in cheque bounce case – Waiver of cost of 15% of cheque amount -- Petitioner has a poor financial condition, 51 year old lady who is stated to be having no source of livelihood -- Court deemed it appropriate that no costs should be imposed upon the petitioner -- Revision allowed and judgments of Lower Courts set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2022

Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused -- Acquittal of accused -- Matter can be compromised at the stage of pendency of revisional proceedings before the High Court -- Conviction and sentence of the accused can be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2020

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174- IPC -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Recalling of order -- Leave granted, impugned order upholding the conviction of the appellant would be treated as settled and compounded -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.08.2022

Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Compounding of offence -- Cheque amount paid -- Sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Cheque bounce case – Compounding of offence -- Exemption from 15% of Cheque amount -- Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Concurrent sentences can be awarded in case of single transaction as a rule of thumb, but the same may not apply, if the transactions relating to the offences are different and the facts constituting to offences are also different -- If the accused is habitual of committing acts repeatedly and is found guilty on various counts and is found to be a menace to the society, then the term of consecutive sentences should be given as per the ratio of K. Prabhakaran's case 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 667.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Conviction in cheque bounce case -– There are numerous complaints of different complainants in respect of different cheques issued from different accounts of different Banks -- Though the complaints were decided by the same Court vide judgment and order of the even date, but the same cannot be treated to be of single transaction -- Involvement in numerous complaints is indicative of the fact the he is habitual offender – Held, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of running of sentences concurrently in terms of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Conviction of accused -- Discretion to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the lower Appellate Court or by the revisional Court at the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction -- It will not be open for a person to seek such discretion by moving an application under Sections 427 and 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

All the cheques have been given in the same transaction and the parties are the same, therefore, applications praying for concurrence of sentence in all the cases allowed -- Sentences in all the cases ordered to run concurrently -- However, the sentence of payment of compensation and in default thereof, in each case, is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Singular transaction -- Loan of Rs.5 lacs each on two different dates – Two transactions, though undertaken at different points of time, to be deemed as a singular transaction or two segments of one transaction -- Imperative essentiality of a single transaction as the decisive factor to enable the Court to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous one -- Direction for concurrent running of sentence would be limited to the substantive sentence alone – Substantive sentences of 10 months simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the two complaints would run concurrently – Default sentences, if the fine by way of compensation, as imposed, has not been paid by him would run consecutively.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2016

Two complaints by different complainants u/s 138 of NI Act – In both case one year sentence besides fine was passed –Sentence ordered to be run concurrently -- However, the fine imposed by the trial Court and its default clause are maintained in both the cases.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.09.2016

Basic thumb rule is that concurrent sentences are to be awarded in a case of single transaction -- It is only in those circumstances when different transactions relating to offences are involved, sentences may not be allowed to run concurrently – Held, there is only one transaction i.e. storage of paddy and misappropriation thereof -- Prosecution has invoked two different remedies available with it i.e. registration of FIR u/s 420/406 IPC and to invoke proceedings in complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Sentence in complaint u/s 138 NI Act is ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in FIR case. Jang Singh’s case 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 323 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Conviction in three complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Sentence qua imprisonment in two complaints filed by one complainant against the petitioner can be ordered to run concurrently -- Sentence in the complaint filed by other complainant forms a different transaction and the sentence qua imprisonment in the said case cannot be held to run concurrently – Concurrent running of sentence in two complaints shall be limited to the sentence qua imprisonment only and sentence which the petitioner has to undergo in default of payment of fine, shall not be effected by this direction and shall also not run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Conviction in two complaints u/s 138 of N.I.Act -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 –Accused convicted in two separate complaints for 1 year R.I. in each case – Both the complaints were decided by same Ld. C.J.M. on same day – Both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2014

Conviction u/s 138 N.I. Act -- Revisional jurisdiction – Depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Delay of 4 days in filing of complaint – Cognizance stage – Interpretation of -- Complaint was filed on 18.8.2009 -- Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process -- Notice of accusation was issued to accused on 14.2.2010 i.e. about six months later -- Case was then adjourned for the evidence of the complainant -- It was on 28.10.2011 i.e. nearly after one year and eight months of taking of cognizance of the complaint by the Court when the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant, that an application for condonation of delay of four days was filed – Whether when the complaint is fixed for the evidence of the complainant, it is to be treated as the cognizance stage? -- The obvious reply is 'NO' -- Ld. Court below fell in error when he took a view that application for condonation of delay can be filed at any stage -- Stage of cognizance of the complaint was already over much earlier and therefore, the complainant could not take the shelter of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- At the time of filing the complaint, the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the complaint when it is within limitation and in case of delay in filing the complaint, the complaint has to come up with the application seeking condonation of delay.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Delay in filing complaint – Quashing of complaint by High court – Two communications, one a handwritten note and the other a formal legal notice issued by the advocate, were served on the accused calling upon him to pay the Cheque amounts – Before the Trial Court, the accused did not raise the issue of ‘limitation’ -- Issue was raised for the first time before the High Court in Section 482, Cr.P.C. proceedings -- High Court, considering the handwritten note sent by the appellant as ‘notice’ u/s 138 of the Act, came to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation – Held, High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation -- High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation – Matter remanded back to Trial Court – Liberty given to Complainant file application for condonation of delay.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Pronote and receipts – Presumption provides that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration -- However, the presumption is rebuttable once the defendant by direct or circumstantial evidence proves on record that the promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein -- Defendant can rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Act by showing preponderance of probability in his favour and against the plaintiff.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Pronote and receipts for Rs.6 lacs – As per plaintiff’s income tax return he himself is a debtor to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs -- This circumstance makes a dent upon the capacity of plaintiff to lend huge amount -- Non-production of record sought by the defendants has strengthened their defence in dislodging the presumption under Section 118 of the Act -- Plea was further shattered by the fact that the loan amount was never reflected in the income tax returns of plaintiff – In the absence of proof of money being available with the plaintiff, defendant(s) had succeeded in proving that the pronotes and receipts were without consideration.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Four cheque bounced – One legal notice – There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure – Only relief that can be granted, Trial Magistrate directed to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

(SC) Decided on: 05.09.2019

Article 20(2) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Article 136 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act -- Upheld by Supreme Court – Compromise/ Settlement between parties – Recalling of order -- In view of the statement made and as full payment has been made along with compensation, order recalled and the special leave petition restored to its original number – Leave granted, impugned order upholding the conviction of the appellant would be treated as settled and compounded -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.08.2022

Article 136 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2022

Article 136 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Article 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Article 21 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Article 20(2) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 -- Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Double jeopardy -- Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Article 141 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 – Cheque bounce case – Stare Decisis -- Accused’s evidence by way of affidavit – Permissibility of – Accused, while appearing as his own witness in defence does not have any right to lead the evidence by way of affidavit – Held, even if the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Bank Association 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 598 is taken to be suggesting contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., 2010(1) JT 259, then also, it is the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd., which shall hold the field, being earlier in point of time and having been delivered by a Bench of equal strength.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.02.2019

Article 21 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque -- Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Speedy disposal of cases -- Directions given that : (1) Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons. (2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken. (3) Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. (4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination. (5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court. All the Criminal Courts in the country dealing with Section 138 cases to follow the above-mentioned procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(SC) Decided on: 21.04.2014

Article 20(1) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300(1) -- Double jeopardy – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Article 227 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – SICA proceedings -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Section only creates an embargo against disposal of assets of the company for recovery of its debts -- Purpose of such an embargo is to preserve the assets of the company from being attached or sold for realisation of dues of the creditors -- Section does not bar payment of money by the company or its directors to other persons for satisfaction of their legally enforceable dues -- Section 22 SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegations of an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act against a company or its Directors.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Article 227 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), Section 22-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dishonour of Cheque -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – Company declared Sick -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- In a case in which the BIFR has submitted its report declaring a company as ‘sick’ and has also issued a direction u/s 22-A restraining the company or its directors not to dispose of any of its assets except with consent of the Board then the contention raised that a criminal case for the alleged offence u/s 138 NI Act cannot be instituted during the period in which the restraint order passed by the BIFR remains operative cannot be rejected outright -- Whether the contention can be accepted or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case -- For instance, before the date on which the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days after notice, a restraint order of the BIFR u/s 22-A was passed against the company then it cannot be said that the offence u/s 138 NI Act was completed -- In such a case it may reasonably be said that the dishonoring of the cheque by the bank and failure to make payment of the amount by the company and/or its Directors is for reasons beyond the control of the accused -- In such circumstances it would be unjust and unfair and against the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the Directors should be compelled to face trial in a criminal case.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Trial Court acquitted the accused and based its judgment only on the assumption that there were contradictions in the notice and what was stated in the Court – Trial Court had focused entirely on the notice without considering the facts, the pleadings and the material and the admission made by the accused – Held, there is no requirement that all the facts were to be mentioned in the notice, the true spirit behind has to be gathered -- Onus had shifted upon the accused and he was to explain why he made the cheque.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2015

Acquittal by trial court – Appellant has only recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration -- Once the facts came on record remained unrebutted and supported with the evidence on record with no substantive evidence of defence of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against her – Appellant has been rightly convicted.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Suspension of sentence – Brother/Appellant stood surety for Rs. 1 lac – Convict/Appellant in appeals absented and bail bond/ surety bond forfeited – Appellate court directed the surety/appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac each in four cases – Recovery warrants issued – Convict/ Appellant has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court -- Absence of convict/ appellant was beyond the control of the Surety/appellant – Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Concurrent running of sentence – Two complaints by one complainant third one by other -- Sentence in the complaint filed by other complainant forms a different transaction and the sentence qua imprisonment in the said case cannot be held to run concurrently – Concurrent running of sentence in two complaints ordered limited to the sentence qua imprisonment and sentence which the petitioner has to undergo in default of payment of fine, shall not be effected by this direction and shall also not run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.01.2015

Concurrent running of sentences – Accused convicted in two separate complaints for 1 year R.I. in each case – Both the complaints were decided by same Ld. C.J.M. on same day – Both the revision petitions are dismissed, but the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2014

Ex-parte dismissal of appeal -- Held, impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and her counsel which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the matter directly relates to life and liberty of the applicant-petitioner, thus, it would be travesty of justice and violation of principles of natural justice -- Impugned order passed by the ld. ASJ set aside -- Petitioner directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 21.11.2022, no adjournment shall be granted and ld. ASJ, shall hear and decide the appeal on the date fixed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Compounding of offence after conviction -- Compromise after 10 years of litigation -- A sum of Rs.69 lakhs paid to the complainant -- Looking to the quantification of default amount, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months.

(SC) Decided on: 18.10.2022

Reduction in sentence – Cheque amount was Rs.70,000/- -- Sentence was to pay twice the amount of cheque and to suffer imprisonment for one month -- Amount of fine of Rs.1,40,000/- paid, sentence modified to Rs.1,40,000/- apart from the litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- by setting aside the order of imprisonment for one month.

(SC) Decided on: 13.10.2022

Compromise/ Settlement between parties – Recalling of order -- Leave granted, impugned order upholding the conviction of the appellant would be treated as settled and compounded -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.08.2022

Revision -- Allegation of forgery against complainant -- Had that been the case, the accused would have certainly filed a criminal complaint in that regard -- No effort has been made to examine any expert either -- Further, there is no denial by the petitioner to the signatures upon the cheque -- Except bald assertion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence even while referring to the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses – No infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the ld. Appellate Court – No merit, revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.05.2022

Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.05.2022

Suspension of sentence -- Pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation – Held, pre-condition as imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, cannot be found fault with, being legal and in consonance with the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.04.2022

Suspension of sentence in appeal – Pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation -- Petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, as a pre-condition for his suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal – Petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2022

Compromise at revisional stage – Waiver of cost of 15% of cheque amount -- Petitioner has a poor financial condition, 51 year old lady who is stated to be having no source of livelihood -- Court deemed it appropriate that no costs should be imposed upon the petitioner -- Revision allowed and judgments of Lower Courts set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2022

Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2022

Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Non-compliance of 20% deposit of compensation – Cancellation of bail -- After a period of about more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.11.2021

Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-waiver of – Reasoning for – Requirement of -- It is not forth coming from the order that the pleas raised by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit were dealt with, it is so, as the Court proceeded on the basis that there is no discretion for waiver -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Conviction on 17.8.2018 -- Appeal preferred by petitioner -- Challenge to the order passed Appellate Court whereby he has been directed to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount -- Contends that as the complaint has been filed prior to the amendment of Section 148, the same was not applicable to the case of the petitioner – Section 148 has been introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2018 and amendment shall have retrospective effect and shall be applicable to all the pending cases even wherein the complaints were filed prior to 01.09.2018 – Petition dismissed. Surinder Singh Deswal’s case 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 604 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10018 = 2019 (1) L.A.R. 21 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.09.2021

Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Suspension of sentence in appeal – Condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-deposit of -- Direction given that in case the respondents do not deposit the amount in question, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon and the Appellate Court shall proceed to dispose off the main appeal itself at the earliest.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Compounding of offence without consent of complainant -- Cheque amount as well as charges deposited by convict/ accused -- Offence is permitted to be compounded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.12.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Revisional Jurisdiction of High court -- It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings -- It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Compromise of offence – Setting aside of conviction and sentence -- As per settlement, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs against the disputed amount as full and final settlement -- When the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the conviction and sentence of the accused, u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, can be set aside -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence as well as judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2018

Considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and no other litigation is pending between them, the permission granted to compound the offence under the provisions of Section 147 of the N.I. Act -- Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, as well as judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, are set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.08.2018

Compromise of the matter – Sentence already undergone -- Taking into consideration the argument raised for the petitioners to the effect that he is not seeking acquittal, rather, since petitioner has undergone more than half of his sentence and a compromise has also been entered between the parties, Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the substantive sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 27.09.2017

Moral turpitude – Dismissal from service -- Dispute was of private nature -- Offence at best, though has a criminal colour to it cannot be held to be an offence involving moral turpitude – Dismissal from service simplicitor on the ground of conviction u/s 138 of the Act without holding a regular inquiry, as envisaged under the Rules, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside -- Removal from service is set aside -- Petitioner would be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Admission of liability in court – Challenge to finding on merit – Held, once the statement was made by the accused petitioner before the lower Appellate Court, acknowledging the due payments towards him, thereafter, he cannot be allowed to breath hot and cold in the same breadth to allege that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is illegal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Concurrent running of sentence -- Discretion to make the sentences to run concurrently can be exercised by the trial Court or by the lower Appellate Court or by the revisional Court at the time of exercising revisional jurisdiction -- It will not be open for a person to seek such discretion by moving an application under Sections 427 and 482 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Concurrent sentences -- There are numerous complaints of different complainants in respect of different cheques issued from different accounts of different Banks -- Though the complaints were decided by the same Court vide judgment and order of the even date, but the same cannot be treated to be of single transaction -- Involvement in numerous complaints is indicative of the fact the he is habitual offender – Held, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of running of sentences concurrently in terms of Section 427 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.04.2017

Compounding of offence – Amount of Rs.30,000/- paid to complainant in revision – Conviction order set aside and petitioner ordered to be released on deposit of 15% amount i.e. Rs.4500/- in Haryana State Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.02.2017

Compounding of offence – Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is compoundable -- This offence, as per the statutory provision of law contained in NI Act itself, is compoundable at every stage of litigation -- Once the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the complainant has received the agreed amount, conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained any further – Amicable settlement arrived between the parties -- Petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2015

Sentence reduced to 6 months – Cheque for Rs. 1,47,100/- -- Petitioner/accused is facing the agony of trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition for more than 13 years -- Petitioner is a labourer and for personal necessity, he had obtained the amount from the respondent, which he could not pay; the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case and, as such, a first offender; the petitioner remained on bail during the pendency of the trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition, but he did not misuse the concession of bail; the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for 5 months and 8 days – Substantive sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2015

Moral Turpitude – Termination of service -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act even though have a criminal colour cannot be termed to be such as the genesis of the dispute essentially arising from a civil transaction which should not, therefore, ordinarily have any bearing on the service of an employee -- Punishment order of termination of services of the petitioner is extremely harsh – Termination order set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2015

Double jeopardy – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Criminal liability in cheque bounce case -- Moratorium period – Natural persons -- Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Advocate Client relationship – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Mere issuance of cheque by the client may not debar him from contesting the liability -- If liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Issuance of cheque by client as percentage – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Maintainability of -- Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint u/s 138 of the Act -- Claim of the respondent advocate being against public policy and being an act of professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law and have to be quashed -- Issue of professional misconduct is left to be dealt with at the appropriate forum.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Presumption of consideration -- Accused had already admitted his signatures and date put by him -- Story that the accused had misplaced the cheque was a false defence -- Accused was not able to raise even a probable defence and the statutory presumption comes into play -- So far as the security cheque is concerned, the law is clear that it is an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the drawer that the cheque holder may use the security as an alternate mode of discharging his liability -- Complainant was only supposed to prove that the cheque issued by the respondent was dishonored -- Onus had shifted upon the respondent when he admitted his signatures and it was for him to explain -- Order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted for four months.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of Presumption – Trial Court proceeded to pass the order of acquittal on the mere ground of 'creation of doubt' -- Trial Court appears to have proceeded on a misplaced assumption that by mere denial or mere creation of doubt, the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption as envisaged by Section 139 of the NI Act -- In the scheme of the NI Act, mere creation of doubt is not sufficient.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive -- Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount -- There needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Acquittal in criminal case – Merely, because defendant has been acquitted in criminal proceeding that does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff in civil proceedings ipso facto stand disproved.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Moratorium period – Corporate debtor – Natural persons -- Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Cheque issued by Company – If the person who commits an offence u/s 138 of the Act is a company, the company as well as other person in charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of the offence is deemed to be guilty of the offence -- Thus, it creates a constructive liability on the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Cheque bounce case -- To constitute the criminal liability the complainant is required to show that a cheque was issued; that it was presented in the bank in question; that on due presentation, it was dishonoured; that, as enshrined in the provision, requisite notice was served on the person who was sought to be made liable for criminal liability; and that in spite of service of notice, the person who has been arraigned as an accused did not comply with the notice by making payment or fulfilling other obligations within the prescribed period, that is, 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Advance payment by way of cheques – Dishonour of – If at the time of entering into a contract, it is one of the conditions of the contract that the purchaser has to pay the amount in advance and there is breach of such condition then purchaser may have to make good the loss that might have occasioned to the seller but that does not create a criminal liability u/s 138.

(SC) Decided on: 07.04.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Advance payment cheques – Dishonour of -- Subsisting debt – Nature of -- For a criminal liability to be made out u/s 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheques -- View that issuance of cheques towards advance payment at the time of signing contract has to be considered as subsisting liability and dishonour of such cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not acceptable -- If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied by the supplier, the cheque cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability.

(SC) Decided on: 07.04.2014

Liability was of M/s Karan Traders which is Sole Proprietorship – Cheque was issued by Husband of the Sole Proprietor – Held, there was no legal liability on the part of husband – Complaint rightly dismissed by Trial court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2018

After a lapse of more than seven months, the complainant has not been cross-examined, rather, the complainant has been made to suffer to attend the Court on each and every date of hearing -- Held, though the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity, however, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner-accused considering his plea that he was confined to bed subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs to complainant.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.09.2018

Re-calling the witness – Petitioner-company seeks to recall the complainant on one date to cross examine, whether the amount in discharge of which the cheques in question in favour of the respondent has been issued finds reflection in his accounts/income tax returns – Held, examination of the complainant on the afore issue would have a bearing on the adjudication of the dispute between the parties -- Application under Section 311 Cr. P.C to recall allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.05.2017

Evidence of complainant’s wife -- Acquittal of accused -- Not a single document to show loan transaction -- Complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his wife appeared as CW-1 but she was not knowing anything about the loan transaction nor it had taken place in her presence -- Cheque was not given by the accused in her presence to complainant (since deceased) -- Nothing on record to show the source of income -- Signatures on the cheque are in blue ink whereas the amount, date and body of the cheque had been filled with black ink -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to prove the loan transaction – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Compensation not paid – Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Delay of 4 days in filing of complaint -- Condonation of delay -- Cognizance stage – Interpretation of -- Complaint was filed on 18.8.2009 -- Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process -- Notice of accusation was issued to accused on 14.2.2010 i.e. about six months later -- Case was then adjourned for the evidence of the complainant -- It was on 28.10.2011 i.e. nearly after one year and eight months of taking of cognizance of the complaint by the Court when the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant, that an application for condonation of delay of four days was filed – Whether when the complaint is fixed for the evidence of the complainant, it is to be treated as the cognizance stage? -- The obvious reply is 'NO' -- Ld. Court below fell in error when he took a view that application for condonation of delay can be filed at any stage -- Stage of cognizance of the complaint was already over much earlier and therefore, the complainant could not take the shelter of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2015

Cognizance by Magistrate -- At the time of filing the complaint, the Magistrate has to take cognizance of the complaint when it is within limitation and in case of delay in filing the complaint, the complaint has to come up with the application seeking condonation of delay.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Condonation of delay -- Quashing of complaint by High court – Two communications, one a handwritten note and the other a formal legal notice issued by the advocate, were served on the accused calling upon him to pay the Cheque amounts – Before the Trial Court, the accused did not raise the issue of ‘limitation’ -- Issue was raised for the first time before the High Court in Section 482, Cr.P.C. proceedings -- High Court, considering the handwritten note sent by the appellant as ‘notice’ u/s 138 of the Act, came to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation – Held, High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation -- High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation – Matter remanded back to Trial Court – Liberty given to Complainant file application for condonation of delay.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Return of complaint – Patiala House Court returned the original complaint to present it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, i. e. Saket Court on 25.08.2014, the physical copy of which was received by the complainant on 13.10.2015 and complaint was refiled with the Saket Court on 4.11.2015 – Saket Court not accepted the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days as per direction – High Court affirmed the same – If view accepted, without deciding the complaint on merits the accused would be acquitted and the complainant would be without any remedy – Orders passed by Saket Court and High Court set aside -- Saket Court directed to accept the refiled complaint and decide same in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(SC) Decided on: 06.01.2022

Notice by registered post – Presumption of -- Once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing to the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected -- Then requirements under proviso (b) of Section 138 stands complied, if notice is sent in the prescribed manner -- However, the drawer is at liberty to rebut this presumption -- Notice sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Notice to drawer/Company/ Directors -- Offence by Company/Directors – Requirement of law -- Notice u/s 138 is required to be given to “the drawer” -- No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as being entitled to be issued such notice -- Section 141 states that if the person committing an offence u/s 138 is a Company, every director of such Company who was in charge of and responsible to that Company for conduct of its business shall also be deemed to be guilty – Section 141 again does not lay down any requirement that in such eventuality the directors must individually be issued separate notices u/s 138 -- No notice is additionally contemplated to be given to such directors -- Opportunity to the ‘drawer’ Company is considered good enough for those who are in charge of the affairs of such Company -- If it is their case that the offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent such commission, it would be a matter of defence to be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial and certainly not at the stage of notice under Section 138.

(SC) Decided on: 06.05.2015

Expert evidence -- Acquittal of accused -- Once the accused did not accept his signatures on the cheque, complainant did not make any effort to get the signature of the accused proved by examining any handwriting and fingerprint expert, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial court committed no error of law, while passing the acquittal order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Cheque bounce case – Cheque lost plea – Case of the accused that the three cheques were lost but neither any complaint to the police nor any information was given to the bank qua the same at any stage -- Accused/ petitioner has denied his signatures on the cheques in question, but has failed to produce any expert nor any such objection has been raised by the drawee bank -- Adverse inference drawn against the petitioner/accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.02.2020

Conviction u/s 138 N.I. Act -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Direction given that in case the respondents do not deposit the amount in question, then necessary steps warranted under law be taken thereupon and the Appellate Court shall proceed to dispose off the main appeal itself at the earliest.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.03.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Power of Appellate Court -- Amount is required to be deposited within a period of 60 days which may further be extended by another 30 days -- Lower Appellate Court having granted one month’s period only for depositing the amount, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act -- Error needs to be rectified.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Whether discretion of Appellate Court – Held, power vested with the lower Appellate Court, though discretionary is supposed to be a ‘rule’ and said discretion should be exercised in all the cases unless there are some exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the said rule

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Adjustment of amount recovered under 'the SARFAESI Act' – Courts are well within their power to order adjustment -- Amount recovered under the SARFAESI Act shall be deemed to have been adjusted towards 20% of the compensation as ordered by the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Appeal against conviction – Direction of -- Power of -- Amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the Appellant-accused u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence irrespective of the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C..

(SC) Decided on: 29.05.2019

Once the factum of giving money to the accused is proved by the eye witness then; merely because the transaction of loan happens to be subsequent to the date alleged when the money is stated to have been given to the petitioners is totally irrelevant – Witness was deposing after 7-8 years, therefore, such kind of minor discrepancy cannot discredit the entire case of the prosecution.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2018

Restoration of complaint -- Though Ld. trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint on account of non-appearance of the complainant-appellant, however, considering the fact that the complainant-appellant was appearing in the case regularly and on the relevant date, he had to go out of station and the case was fixed for appearance of the accused – Held, the complainant-appellant deserves opportunity to pursue his complaint, which was otherwise not adjudicated on merits -- Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act are more or less civil in nature, even though the same may have criminal bearing -- Consequently, the complaint filed by the applicant u/s 138 of the Act is restored for its decision as per merit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.08.2017

In no way, by the absence, the complainant/appellant is to be benefitted in this complaint case nor there is anything on the record to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant/appellant for his absence from the proceedings – Absence of the complainant on one date in the complaint case is no ground to dismiss the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Single default in appearance -- Leave to appeal -- It is settled law that the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail – Order dismissing the complaint in default is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Restoration of complaint -- In no way, by the absence, the complainant/appellant is to be benefitted in this complaint case nor there is anything on the record to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant/appellant for his absence from the proceedings – Impugned order passed by the Ld. JMIC, has caused miscarriage of justice -- If this order is not set aside, the complainant/appellant will suffer irreparable loss -- Rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail -- Complaint is restored at the stage from where it was dismissed by the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.03.2016

Case transfer to another court -- When the case has been transferred to another Court, it was the obligation of the Court to have ensured that the complainant has been given due notice of the transfer of his case – Ld. Court below has not only acted in a haste but has also denied due justice to the appellant -- Impugned order, set aside directing the Court below to restore the complaint and to proceed ahead into the matter as per law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

Complainant had been appearing spanning over a period of almost three years and the Court having recorded the preliminary evidence passed summoning orders against the accused finding prima facie allegations to summon him for the commission of this offence, and who apparently had been evading his appearance for almost a period of two years -- Held, there was no necessity for the presence of the complainant on the date when the impugned order for dismissing in default was passed as it was the duty of the Court to have procured the presence of the accused in fulfillment of its summoning orders – It was not appropriate and correct exercise of the powers envisaged under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Complaint restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2015

When the case was dismissed, it was fixed for presence of accused -- Presence of the complainant was not necessary -- A very hyper-technical and pedantic approach had been adopted by the Court below by dismissing the complaint only for a single default -- Complainant was diligently pursuing his remedies -- He has given an explanation -- It is always in the interest of justice that the case should be adjudicated on merits -- Matter is remitted back to the trial court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Dismissal in default followed by restoration application unnecessarily delays the disposal of complaint on merits than simply adjourning the case for a date – Complaint was not listed for any particular purpose, rather it was fixed for presence of accused by way of notice and presence of appellant was not necessary on that date -- Merely on that account of non-appearance, the complaint should not have been dismissed in default -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Non-appearance of complainant – Plea of wrong noting of date appears to be genuine -- Bona fide of the complainant is established from the fact that its representative had been appearing on each and every date -- Complaint is restored to its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.05.2015

Restoration of complaint -- Case called several times but none has appeared and on that account, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution -- Cheque amount is stated to be Rs.10 lacs -- Nobody should be condemned unheard – Impugned order stands set-aside -- Complaint stands restored to its original number -- Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2015

Leave to Appeal -- Dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution has resulted in acquittal of the accused and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order by seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order of dismissal or say it differently, restoration of the complaint dismissed in default – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Moral turpitude – Dispute was of private nature -- Offence at best, though has a criminal colour to it cannot be held to be an offence involving moral turpitude – Dismissal from service simplicitor on the ground of conviction u/s 138 of the Act without holding a regular inquiry, as envisaged under the Rules, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside -- Removal from service is set aside -- Petitioner would be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of -- On account of absence of complainant on one occasion dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution was not justified, since, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, non-suiting the parties on technical grounds -- Present petition challenging the impugned order is maintainable and no fault can be found with the same -- Petition accepted; impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored at its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Cheque has not been issued by the accused nor it was from his account -- Document Expert, has been examined to show that cheque- Ex.C2 was not signed by the accused -- No expert, in rebuttal, has been examined by the complainant --- Therefore, case of the complainant qua the cheque-Ex.C2 is doubtful -- Otherwise also, as this cheque was not from the account of the drawer, therefore, one of the necessary ingredient also goes -- Accused-respondent has been rightly acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2018

Matter referred to larger bench, whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Two complaints on same allegations i.e. one u/s 138 of NI Act and other under IPC – Matter referred to larger bench, whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & Ors., (SC) (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16969.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Liability to pay amount – Appellant-complainant supplied goods to M/s. Shah Agencies – Accused carried their business in the names of M/s. Shah Enterprises and M/s. Shah Agencies -- In part discharge of the liability of M/s. Shah Agencies, two cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each were issued by the accused on an account maintained by M/s. Shah Enterprises – Cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund -- Case made out in the complaint was that the goods were sold and supplied to M/s. Shah Enterprises and the liability was of M/s. Shah Enterprises -- While in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the Complainant came out with a case that the liability was that of M/s. Shah Agencies as goods were sold and supplied to M/s. Shah Agencies and it was not the case of the appellant that the accused had agreed to take over and discharge the liabilities of M/s. Shah Agencies – Acquittal of accused upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 16.09.2015

Liability to pay amount – First and foremost essential ingredient for attracting a liability under this Section is that the person who is to be made liable should be the drawer of the cheque and should have drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or other liability.

(SC) Decided on: 16.09.2015

Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Held, section 202 (2) of the Code is inapplicable to complaints u/s 138 in respect of examination of witnesses on oath – For the conduct of inquiry u/s Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit -- In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- – Accused, who is facing trial in complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not competent to tender his evidence through affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2019

Accused, while appearing as his own witness in defence does not have any right to lead the evidence by way of affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.02.2019

Procedure of -- Complainant can give his evidence by way of an affidavit and such affidavit shall be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the Court, which makes it clear that a complainant is not required to examine himself twice i.e. one after filing the complaint and one after summoning of the accused -- Affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant along with complaint for taking cognizance of the offence are good enough to be read in evidence at both the stages i.e. pre-summoning stage and the post summoning stage -- In other words, there is no necessity to recall and re-examine the complaint after summoning of accused, unless the Magistrate passes a specific order as to why the complainant is to be recalled -- In summary trial, after the accused is summoned, his plea is to be recorded under Section 263(g) Cr.P.C. and his examination, if any, can be done by a Magistrate and a finding can be given by the Court under Section 263(h) Cr.P.C. and the same procedure can be followed by a Magistrate for offence of dishonour of cheque since offence under Section 138 of the Act is a document based offence -- If the proviso (a), (b) & (c) to Section 138 of the Act are shown to have been complied with, technically the commission of the offence stands completed and it is for the accused to show that no offence could have been committed by him for specific reasons and defences.

(SC) Decided on: 21.04.2014

Death of complainant – Acquittal of accused -- Not a single document to show loan transaction -- Complainant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and his wife appeared as CW-1 but she was not knowing anything about the loan transaction nor it had taken place in her presence -- Cheque was not given by the accused in her presence to complainant (since deceased) -- Nothing on record to show the source of income -- Signatures on the cheque are in blue ink whereas the amount, date and body of the cheque had been filled with black ink -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to prove the loan transaction – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Conviction of accused by trial court – Held, impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and her counsel which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the matter directly relates to life and liberty of the applicant-petitioner, thus, it would be travesty of justice and violation of principles of natural justice -- Impugned order passed by the ld. ASJ set aside -- Petitioner directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 21.11.2022, no adjournment shall be granted and ld. ASJ, shall hear and decide the appeal on the date fixed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen, therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance -- If an application is made by the petitioner for grant of exemption, the learned trial Judge shall favorably consider the same -- Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Acquittal of accused-- Agreement to sell property with sons of accused – Rs.8 lacs received by sons – No suit for specific performance filed by complainant – Complainant is in possession of property – Attorney of the complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that complainant had made a complaint to the police authorities, where a compromise was effected between the complainant and the respondent and in lieu of the said compromise, cheques in question had been issued by the accused – Compromise relied upon by the complainant was not duly proved on record -- Plea put-forth by the accused that the cheques in question had been got issued from him under fear and pressure, was believable -- Trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the cheques in question had not been issued for any existing liability – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.01.2015

Additional evidence -- Application for additional evidence, which was filed for examination of a Hand-writing Expert to compare the writing on the body of the cheque, which has been asserted by the petitioner to have not been written by him does not have any material significance especially when the signatures on the cheque have been admitted by the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 12.01.2018

Denial of signature – Acquittal of accused -- Once the accused did not accept his signatures on the cheque, complainant did not make any effort to get the signature of the accused proved by examining any handwriting and fingerprint expert, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial court committed no error of law, while passing the acquittal order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Signature on cheque – Cheque in question was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient' – Accused has not examined an officer from her bank to prove that the bank officer did not verify signatures on the cheque – In absence of any plea by the accused during cross-examination of the complainant that the cheque does not bear her signatures and evidence of her banker that signatures on the cheque being not verified at the time of return of cheque with the remarks 'funds insufficient', there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court declining the prayer for examination of signature of accused on cheque by an expert.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2015

Cheque bounce case – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation – Addl. Session Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation by 04.06.2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022 – High Court extended time upto 30.06.2022 by taking sympathetic consideration.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Legally enforceable liability – Existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Validity of -- Security cheque – Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption u/s 118 that a negotiable instrument is presumed to be fully supported by consideration -- If a cheque is issued as security or with an authority given to the drawee that it could be filled up or used for certain claims which are later ascertained, it is still a valid instrument as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which states that document which is inchoate with authority granted to the drawee to fill up the recitals, the document would become the full-fledged enforceable negotiable instrument, the moment the recitals were filled up by the drawee of the negotiable instrument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Onus of proof – During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Onus of proof – It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence -- Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR -- Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR -- Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Quashing of -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- Compromise in Cheque bounce case – Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Proclaimed person -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Remand to fill lacuna of case – In the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 141 – Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Conviction in cheque bounce case – Had that been the case, the accused would have certainly filed a criminal complaint in that regard -- No effort has been made to examine any expert either -- Further, there is no denial by the petitioner to the signatures upon the cheque -- Except bald assertion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence even while referring to the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses – No infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the ld. Appellate Court – No merit, revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

One legal notice – Consolidation of trial -- There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure – Only relief that can be granted, Trial Magistrate directed to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

(SC) Decided on: 05.09.2019

Acquittal in Cheque bounce case – However, there is no evidence that the complainant had the capacity to advance Rs.11,30,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the respondent is shown in the Income Tax Return – Respondent-accused stated that the appellant had misused the cheque which he gave to his (appellant) brother, this fact is duly proved by the statement of independent witness -- Except self serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of advancement of loan – Ld. Trial Court acquitted the respondent -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- -- Complainant has not mentioned in his complaint as to for what purpose, he had advanced such a substantial amount as loan to the accused. -- While appearing in the witness box applicant has deposed that the loan was advanced to the respondent in the presence of her father-in-law but she has not examined this witness in support of her claim. -- No other witness has been examined by her regarding the loan transaction. Applicant has also not produced on record any receipt or pronote for grant of loan to the accused. Therefore, the act and conduct of the applicant is highly improbable, as no sane person is expected to advance such a substantial amount as loan to any other person without any documentation or even receipt or acknowledgement. -- Complainant has also failed to mention the date, month and year of advancement of loan or issuance of cheque in question by the accused in her favour either in her pleadings or in her evidence. – Complainant has also not produced any document which may show her income/expenditure/ account of business income or the income tax return, which may draw an inference that she is financially well placed. -- She has not given any detail as to what business or profession she is carrying. -- Only contention, which the complainant has raised is that she has advanced a loan of Rs.20 lakhs to the accused as she had sold an industrial shed at Panchkula, but neither such sale deed nor any other relevant document has been produced on record by the complainant, which can substantiate the plea that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was collected by her after the sale of the said industrial unit situated in Panchkula. When no evidence to connect the respondent-accused with the alleged offence is available on record, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 20.09.2017

Held, such a huge amount of Rs.21 Lakhs cannot be given by a person without executing any document – Complainant-property dealer has not produced the account books to show the lending of this amount of Rs.21 Lakhs -- No document to show that this amount had been withdrawn from any bank account – Fact that the complainant borrowed Rs.21 Lakhs to give it a friendly loan to another person also creates doubt in the version of the complainant – Ld. Trial Court acquitted the accused – No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.12.2015

Effect of -- Fact that the loan may not have been advanced by a cheque or demand draft or a receipt might not have been obtained would make no difference.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Section 27 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Cheque bounce case – Notice by registered post – Presumption of -- Once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing to the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected -- Then requirements under proviso (b) of Section 138 stands complied, if notice is sent in the prescribed manner -- However, the drawer is at liberty to rebut this presumption -- Notice sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act -- Rebuttal of -- Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over -- Presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Validity of -- Act does not prescribe any specific form of notice, but mandates that it should be issued in writing – Handwritten notice contains the details the subject amount, details of Cheque numbers and dates of issue with amounts and particulars of Bank, Returning of Cheques by the banker dishonouring them on the ground of ‘Stop Payment’ by the accused, a demand for immediate repayment of the amount; and a caution to the accused that in case of failure on the part of respondent, the appellant would initiate legal proceedings – Held, the Handwritten note fulfilled the mandatory requirements under clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 and could be said to be a valid ‘notice’.

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2014

Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Out of it the complainant had received Rs.1,53,500/- from the respondent -- Cheque in question was for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- -- It does not appeal to reason that the respondent would still issue a cheque for Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant -- Complainant himself produced photocopy of the affidavit, whereby the respondent sold the said vehicle in the year 2003 -- It casts a shadow of doubt whether the respondent actually issued a cheque to the complainant in the year 2005 or not -- Trial court rightly granted the benefit of doubt to the respondent, acquitting him from the charges levelled against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2015

Complaint through GPA – Ld. J.M.I.C., while acquitting the accused held that GPA were neither filed in original nor were duly registered, as such were not admissible in evidence – Court also held that when after the sanction of alleged loan, the Bank seized the vehicle and sold the same and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the amount repayable by the accused, then the accused/borrower was not guilty under an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act for dishonour of post dated cheques – Held, findings given by learned JMIC, are correct, as per law and cannot be held as illegal or perverse.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.01.2015

Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.11.2022

Offence u/s 138 of the Act is quasi criminal in nature -- It is not an offence against society and an accused can escape punishment by settling with the complainant -- Thus, while imposing a sentence u/s 138 of the Act, the Court must be alive to the concern of the Legislature in inserting Chapter XVII in the Act and then amending the provisions thereof to make the same more stringent as well as the jurisprudential principles of deterrence and restoration and that the offence is quasi criminal in nature.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Accused neither Director nor a signatory of cheque -- Quashing of complaint -- (a) The complaint is based on a Memorandum of Understanding, which is not signed by the petitioner and is rather signed by accused No.3. The dishonoured cheques were given to the complainant at the time of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. (b) The cheque numbers of the disputed cheques are duly mentioned in the body of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by accused No.3, which show that he was the person In-charge of the Company as he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of accused No.1-Company and had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. (c) Even the cheques are not signed by the petitioner and the same are signed by accused Nos.2 and 3. (d) In the complaints, the only allegation in para 3 is that accused No.4-petitioner is In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, however, there is no document to support this version and rather in the reply filed by the complainant in High Court, nowhere reflects that the petitioner is the In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, in any manner. (e) There is nothing on record to support the complaints that the petitioner is one Director of accused No.1-Company as it is the case of the petitioner that he never remained the Director of accused No.1-Company at any stage and this fact is not disputed in the reply. Summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.03.2020

Section 269 SS – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Contention that the plaintiff was not required to mention the loan advanced to defendants in his income tax returns, is not only erroneous but also not accepted from a person who himself is an income tax practitioner for the last three decades.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2015

Section 30 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Void agreement – Presumption u/s 139 of NI Act – Rebuttal of -- Statement of account is not pertaining to any loan raised by the accused but the same is regarding chit fund/lottery system run by the complainant -- Transaction comes under the agreement by way of wager, which is void as per Section 30 of the Contract Act -- Both the parties were involved in chit fund/lottery system -- Presumption u/s 139 of Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence – Accused raised probable defence – Acquittal order, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2019

Section 137 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) , Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Closing of cross-examination -- Trial Court closed the cross examination of CW-1 without taking note of the absence of the lawyer for the petitioners – Stated that non-appearance was due to demise of father of petitioners' counsel and this fact was also brought to the notice of the concerned Court -- Order set aside and parties permitted to appear before the trial Court subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not seek any further adjournment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Section 45 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 38, 139 -- Cheque signed by drawer – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act/ Cheque towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability – Rebuttal of -- Handwriting expert to examine writing on cheque – Permissibility of – High Court permitted to engage a hand-writing expert to seek an opinion on whether “the authorship on the questioned writings” (the disputed cheque) can be attributed to the respondents -- Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over -- Presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert -- No purpose served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert – Order of High Court set aside, appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Section 118(a) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal by trial court – Conviction by High Court -- Appellant has only recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration -- Once the facts came on record remained unrebutted and supported with the evidence on record with no substantive evidence of defence of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against her – Appellant has been rightly convicted.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 118(a) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption of consideration – Onus to rebut – Scope of evidence -- There is a mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Act and the onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act -- To rebut this presumption, facts must be adduced by the accused which on a preponderance of probability (not beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of criminal offences), must then be proved.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 118(a) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Cheque bounce case – After cheques being bounced, two separate legal notices were served, even after receiving the said notices, the appellant neither responded to the notices nor made any payment within the statutory period of fifteen days – When the complainant exhibited all documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support thereof, the appellant has recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence -- Statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 of the Code is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused -- No evidence to rebut the presumption -- Held, High Court, has not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed u/s 138 of the Act, which needs no further interference -- Appeals being without any substance, dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 118 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 – Admission of signatures on cheque -- Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of -- Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative -- Obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him – Held, once the 2nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed of undertaking, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt -- Trial Court fell in error when it called upon the Complainant-Respondent to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay -- Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position and amounts to a patent error of law.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Section 118 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 – Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- Presumptions raised u/s 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature – A probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of “preponderance of probability”, and not mere possibility -- Bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of accused.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Section 118 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 – Blank signed cheque and stamp papers – Legal enforceable liability -- Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- Even if the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 3 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 145 -- Complaint in cheque bounce case – Evidence of accused by way of affidavit – Permissibility of -- Accused, who is facing trial in complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not competent to tender his evidence through affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2019

Section 114 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 27 -- Cheque bounce case – Notice by registered post – Presumption of -- Once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing to the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected -- Then requirements under proviso (b) of Section 138 stands complied, if notice is sent in the prescribed manner -- However, the drawer is at liberty to rebut this presumption -- Notice sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Section 45 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Denial of signature – Expert evidence -- Acquittal of accused -- Once the accused did not accept his signatures on the cheque, complainant did not make any effort to get the signature of the accused proved by examining any handwriting and fingerprint expert, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial court committed no error of law, while passing the acquittal order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2015

Section 34 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Bahi entries – Evidential value -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act -- Entry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise -- Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability -- Commission agents used to obtain such blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legal liability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it -- Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Section 406, 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Section 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Cheating -- Amount advanced towards the business transaction and loan agreement entered into between the parties -- Period for repayment was agreed and the cheque issued to ensure repayment -- Mere dishonour of the cheque cannot be construed as an act with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received -- No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforementioned FIR alive -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declarednc as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom,

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.12.2020

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.02.2020

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.05.2019 Pronounced on : 21.05.2019

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Section 41 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 141, 143, 147 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(6) -- Cheque bounce case – Compounding of -- Liabilities created by Sections 138, 139, 141 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in contemplation with an offence otherwise not contemplated by Indian Penal Code -- Therefore, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would prevail over the scheme including Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Section 70 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 421(1), 431 – Cheque bounce case – Compensation not paid – Default sentence undergone -- Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Section 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 177 – Dishonour of cheque – Place for Commission of offence –Territorial jurisdiction -- Remedies available to payee – Relief introduced by Section 138 of the N.I. Act is in addition to the contemplations in the IPC -- It is still open to such a payee recipient of a dishonoured cheque to lodge a FIR with the Police or file a Complaint directly before the concerned Magistrate -- If the payee succeeds in establishing that the inducement for accepting a cheque which subsequently bounced had occurred where he resides or ordinarily transacts business, he will not have to suffer the travails of journeying to the place where the cheque has been dishonoured -- All remedies under the IPC and Cr.PC are available to such a payee if he chooses to pursue this course of action, rather than a Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act – Payee can always file a suit for recovery wherever the cause of action arises dependent on his choosing.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014

Section 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 20(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300(1) -- Double jeopardy – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011

Section 138 is the charging section creating criminal liability in case of dishonour of a cheque and its main ingredients are : (i) Issuance of a cheque. (ii) Presentation of the cheque (iii) Dishonour of the cheque (iv) Service of statutory notice on the person sought to be made liable, and (v) Non-compliance or non-payment in pursuance of the notice within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.11.2015

Quashing of summoning order and complaint – Revisional Jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy available – Objection of -- Held, in exercise of revisional power, Court of Sessions or the High Court is not vested with the power of quashing a criminal complaint -- This power is available to the High Court alone under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice -- Thus, the prayer made in this petition could not have been granted by the revisional Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Court of Sessions in the first instance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. -- FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Quashing of Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. and FIR u/s 174-A – Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Intermediatory order -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order -- In the scheme of hierarchy, the party should seek invocation from the lowest court if there is concurrent jurisdiction -- Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside order of dismissal or say it differently, restoration of the complaint dismissed in default – Absence of complainant from the proceedings was not willful or intentional but due to justifiable reason and proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused – Ld. trial Magistrate neither examined nor recorded any reasons if personal appearance of the petitioner could not be dispensed with on that day – Complaint filed by the petitioner is ordered to be restored.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Rule 4 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Account of the Company was frozen by virtue of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the NCLT -- All the moveable and immoveable assets of the Company have been taken over – Held, cheque in question is dated 12.06.2017, which was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 i.e. much prior to the passing of the order by the NCLT -- Even the legal notice dated 26.08.2017 served upon the petitioner is prior to commencement of IBC proceedings – Petitioner cannot thus take ruse under NCLT order passed after the institution of impugned complaint and passing of the summoning order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

Section 14 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Moratorium period – Corporate debtor – Natural persons -- Criminal liability in cheque bounce case -- Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC, by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted would then become applicable -- Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 7 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Rule 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Account of the Company was frozen by virtue of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the NCLT -- All the moveable and immoveable assets of the Company have been taken over – Held, cheque in question is dated 12.06.2017, which was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 i.e. much prior to the passing of the order by the NCLT -- Even the legal notice dated 26.08.2017 served upon the petitioner is prior to commencement of IBC proceedings – Petitioner cannot thus take ruse under NCLT order passed after the institution of impugned complaint and passing of the summoning order

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

Cheque bounce case – Opportunity of hearing – Trial Court granted interim compensation u/s 143(A) just in a routine manner and there is no application of mind as to why the said compensation has to be awarded – No opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his response, before passing of the impugned order – Trial Court misread Section 143(A) and treated the said provision as mandatory in nature, whereas the legal position is otherwise – Matter remanded back to learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter regarding grant of interim compensation to the complainant in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2022

Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Maintainability of Revision -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order. Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Delay of 4 days in filing of complaint – Condonation of delay -- Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process -- Notice of accusation was issued to accused about six months later -- Case was then adjourned for the evidence of the complainant -- Nearly after one year and eight months of taking of cognizance of the complaint by the Court when the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant, that an application for condonation of delay of four days was filed – Whether when the complaint is fixed for the evidence of the complainant, it is to be treated as the cognizance stage? -- The obvious reply is 'NO' -- Ld. Court below fell in error when he took a view that application for condonation of delay can be filed at any stage -- Stage of cognizance of the complaint was already over much earlier and therefore, the complainant could not take the shelter of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2015

Cheque bounce case – Security cheque -- Post-dated cheque – Interpretation must not permit dishonesty of the drawee of the cheque as well -- Though a post-dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment -- If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment, then the offence u/s 138 is not made out.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Dishonour of – Advocate Client relationship – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Mere issuance of cheque by the client may not debar him from contesting the liability -- If liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Issuance of cheque by client as percentage – Dishonour of – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Maintainability of -- Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint u/s 138 of the Act -- Claim of the respondent advocate being against public policy and being an act of professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law and have to be quashed -- Issue of professional misconduct is left to be dealt with at the appropriate forum.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Challenge to -- Cheque issued by Company – Criminal liability of Director/Executive Director – Averments put forth in complaint relating to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein that they are whole-time Director and Executive Director and they were in charge of day to day affairs of the Company – Held, High Court has fallen into grave error by coming to the conclusion that there are no specific averments in the complaint for issuance of summons against the said accused persons – Order of High Court set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 06.04.2016

Quashing of Complaint -- Supreme Court summarized the law as follows: a) Once in a complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act the basic averment is made that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the Magistrate can issue process against such Director; b) If a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of such a complaint by the Director, the High Court may, in the facts of a particular case, on an overall reading of the complaint, refuse to quash the complaint because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director. c) In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence or circumstances, complaint cannot be quashed; d) No restriction can be placed on the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the Court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry, but, nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary qua a particular Director.

(SC) Decided on: 17.10.2014

Non-account holder with drawer – Non signatory to cheque – Quashing of complaint -- A person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque -- Criminal complaint quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Acquittal of accused in cheque bounce case – Setting aside of -- Ordinarily, the Appellate Court will not be upsetting the judgment of acquittal, if the view taken by Trial Court is one of the possible views of matter and unless the Appellate Court arrives at a clear finding that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, i.e., not supported by evidence on record or contrary to what is regarded as normal or reasonable; or is wholly unsustainable in law -- Such general restrictions are essentially to remind the Appellate Court that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and a judgment of acquittal further strengthens such presumption in favour of the accused -- Same rule with same rigour cannot be applied in a matter relating to the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act, particularly where a presumption is drawn that the holder has received the cheque for the discharge, wholly or in part, of any debt or liability -- Appellate Court is certainly entitled to examine the evidence on record in order to find if preponderance indeed leans in favour of the accused.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Accused was absent -- Order, closing the evidence of the complainant, on the date when the accused himself was not present is not justified and accordingly, the same is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2017

Acquittal of accused – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.11.2022

Acquittal of accused – Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Acquittal of accused -- Signatures on the cheque is not denied, yet the complainant has failed to prove any friendly relationship with the accused -- No acknowledgement has been placed on record nor in the income tax returns Mark `A’ and Mark `B’, there is any reference of loan when it is an admitted fact that the wife of attorney (complainant) had been into the business of Hire Purchase and Investment for the last 20 years -- It is permissible for the accused to point out contradictions/deficiencies in the evidence led by the prosecution and that it is not necessary for the accused to lead evidence in defence to rebut the presumption -- No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Nothing on record that amount was demanded back from accused -- No document to prove that complainant is doing joint business with accused – Accused produced DDR regarding loss of cheque – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- Nothing on record to show that findings are against evidence and law – No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.12.2018

Acquittal of accused – Complainant admitted that the accused had taken a loan from the finance company and he has returned the same and, thereafter, again he had taken loan of Rs. 11,000/- and returned the same – Complainant has failed to explain in his complaint and the legal notice as to when and for what purpose, the amount of Rs.70,000/- was taken by the accused, specially when in the complaint neither any date, month, year nor the purpose is mentioned – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal against the judgment is declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Accused has led sufficient evidence to prove that he is a sole proprietor of the firm M/s Pardeep Kumar and he had issued the cheque to the firm, namely, M/s Ganpati Fabrics, which is proprietorship concern of the son of the applicant – Held, trial Court has rightly held that neither the complainant has pleaded in his complaint that the accused has issued the cheque in discharge of his liability of third person with the proprietor of concern `Textile' nor there is any evidence, in support thereof -- It has come in the statement of the complainant himself that M/s Ganpati Fabrics is the proprietorship firm of his son and that the accused concern was having business dealing with the concern M/s Ganpati Fabrics -- Therefore, the version given by the accused is more probable that he has no existing legal liability towards the complainant-`Textile' – Acquittal of the accused is just and proper – Application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 21.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Capacity to pay – Rebuttal of presumption – Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted even from the case of the complainant -- Complainant was a student till 2005 -- Nothing has been shown from where he was earning and advanced such an huge amount of Rs.2,80,000/- -- Capacity to lend such an huge amount has also not been shown by leading cogent evidence -- Complainant stated in his evidence that he borrowed some amount from his relative but none of the relative has been examined to prove this fact -- Court below found that presumption u/s 139 has been rebutted -- Held, in no way, the judgment can be held as perverse or against the evidence – No ground made out for grant leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.03.2017

Acquittal of accused – No particulars have been given as to on which date, month or year the money was given on which this liability arose -- No security document was taken -- There was no document to show this transaction – Accused had not denied issuance of cheque, but has set up a defence that the cheque was issued to someone else as security -- Presumption has been rebutted by the accused – No ground to grant leave to file appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.03.2017

Acquittal of accused – No date has been mentioned as to when the loan was given to the accused -- There is no document on record to show these loan transactions -- There is nothing in the complaints as to when the loan was demanded back by the complainants from the accused -- There are no particulars of liability of any type in the complaints – On the other hand, the accused has raised probable defence – No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.03.2017

Acquittal of accused – Cheque book issued to another firm -- Cheque was returned back unpaid with the remarks “account closed” – Even if it is taken that the cheque had been drawn by the accused, it was not drawn from the account of the accused -- One of the necessary ingredients under Section 138 of the NI Act is missing -- No ground to grant leave to file appeal – Application dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.03.2017

Acquittal of accused – Appellant secured loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from one person and handed over to the accused -- However, there is no evidence that said person had the capacity to advance Rs.2,00,000/- or that amount allegedly given on loan to the appellant is shown in the Income Tax Return or in any other record maintained by said person -- Appellant has not even examined that person -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Except self-serving statement of the appellant there is no material evidence on record to prove the factum of legally enforceable debt of the respondent towards appellant – No oral or documentary evidence to prove the advancement of loan – In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in accused’s favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible – Keeping in view the above, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Acquittal of accused – Loan/Cheque of Rs.18 lacs – Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted -- No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissed in default – It is settled law that the rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible -- Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law -- Where technical consideration and merit or cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of merit and substantial justice is to prevail – Order dismissing the complaint in default is set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Acquittal of accused – Cheque amounting to Rs.5 lacs -- No date, month or years has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- Neither the place where the loan was given nor any fact has been mentioned as to in whose presence, the loan was given -- Even no security document has been taken from the accused at the time of granting loan nor receipt was taken -- No document of any type has been placed on record to show the loan transaction and withdrawal of huge amount from any bank etc. -- Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted -- No ground to grant leave to the applicant to file an appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Rebuttal of presumption – In the reply to legal notice, the accused has specifically mentioned that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from complainant and not Rs.4 lacs and the cheque was handed over to the complainant as security cheque – Nothing in the complaint or in the evidence as to on which date and in which month and year, what amount was given to the accused as loan -- It was necessary, specifically, when the accused is alleging that he has taken loan of Rs.10,000/- only -- One pen has been used for signing the cheque, other pen has been used for putting the date on the cheque and third pen has been used for filling the amount in words as well as in figure -- No cogent evidence on the record to show as to why a huge amount of Rs.4 lacs was given without getting any receipt or getting executed any security document i.e. pronote etc. from the accused -- Nothing on the record to show that from where Rs.4 lacs was withdrawn and paid to the accused – Presumption u/s 139 stand rebutted – Order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Trial Court upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2016

Acquittal of accused – No agreement to sell for harvesting combine -- No document regarding ownership of the harvesting combine -- Nothing on the record regarding the payment of Rs.10 lacs by the complainant to the accused – Accused has also appeared as defence witness and stated that she had litigation with “AS” and after received full and final payment he withdrew the complaint and complainant misused the cheque by taking the same from “AS” – In cross-examination, the accused admitted that he has taken cheque from “AS” – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted -- Nothing to show the capacity of the complainant to pay such a huge amount -- Amount in question has not been shown in the income tax return nor bank record has been produced to show from where this amount has been withdrawn – Finding of Trial Court acquitting the accused upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent/accused -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- No document on record to show the legal liability of the respondent towards the applicant -- Allegations of the applicant appears to be vague -- In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.11.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – No particulars were given as to when and how much amount has been given, no dates, months and years have been mentioned in the complaint -- When the complainant came into witness box, he took totally different stand by stating that the amount has been given to the accused by way of cheque of Rs.3 lacs – In statement of accounts no such entry regarding the withdrawal of sum of Rs.3 lacs by way of cheque has been specifically pointed out by the complainant -- Complainant also failed to prove source of such a huge amount -- Statement of complainant is contradictory to the version given in the complaint -- Complainant is working as commission agent, he has not produced on record his account books to show entry regarding advancement of loan to the accused -- Rather, in cross-examination, he has stated that he has not reflected the said amount in books of account -- Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been duly rebutted by the accused – Trial Court acquitted the accused -- No ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2015

Acquittal of accused – If a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption in his favour; first the presumption of innocence, and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible. C. Antony’s case 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 750 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Transaction pertains to the year 2002, however the cheque in question is dated 15.09.2008 – A complaint was also made to the police station with regard to non-return of cheque after clearance of debt -- Once the accused himself moved a complaint against the applicant/ complainant then the story of issuance of cheque is not sustainable -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the applicant – Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution – Dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution has resulted in acquittal of the accused and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the order by seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Acquittal of accused – Judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by High Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s 378(4) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Time barred debt -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Typographical error in the legal notice regarding cheques number -- Such typographical error if any, does not meet the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the only course left for the complainant was to give a fresh legal notice to the accused – Fresh notice was not given – Held, the complaint is not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2014

Part payment – Endorsement on cheque –Cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment -- If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence u/s 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Law summarised in following manner:- (i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Presumption of Complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Creation of doubt is not sufficient -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the order of acquittal on the mere ground of 'creation of doubt' -- Trial Court appears to have proceeded on a misplaced assumption that by mere denial or mere creation of doubt, the appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption as envisaged by Section 139 of the NI Act -- In the scheme of the NI Act, mere creation of doubt is not sufficient.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Presumption of – Source of fund for loan – Requirement of law – After purportedly drawing the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused -- This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law -- After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Probable defence -- On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Agreement to sell – A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138.

(SC) Decided on: 13.03.2019

Blank cheque leaf -- Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Fiduciary relation -- Existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption u/s 139 of the Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.

(SC) Decided on: 06.02.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Defence was that the cheque was issued to the complainant on an assurance of a loan which would be obtained from a financial institution – Entire amount alleged to have been paid without obtaining a receipt or document evidencing the payment of the amount – Complainant failed to establish the source of funds -- Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the accused -- Non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction – Presumption stands rebutted -- Order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court was justified.

(SC) Decided on: 18.01.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption u/s 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.

(SC) Decided on: 18.01.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- No document to show the loan transaction -- No particulars at which place and in whose presence the amount was given; whether it was given in cash or through cheque -- Nothing on record as to when the demand was raised; whether any security document was obtained -- Father of the accused filed a written complaint against the complainant to take action for breaking the glass of the car etc. -- When the relations between complainant and accused families were strained and the complaint was filed against the complainant and that was pending, it is improbable that the complainant will give a loan of Rs.3,63,000/- to the accused without even getting any receipt or security document -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence and the accused had raised a probable defence and the presumption was rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.08.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Complainant proved the issuance of cheque which contained signatures of the accused and on presentation of the cheque, the cheque was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds” -- Bank official-witnesses proved that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it did not contain signatures of the accused rather it was returned due to insufficient funds – Trial court as well as the Appellate Court found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused – Defence that cheque was stolen complainant – No evidence led by accused -- Defence taken that cheque was stolen rejected by the two courts below – No basis for the High court coming to the conclusion that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability.

(SC) Decided on: 02.07.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Complainant proved the issuance of cheque which contained signatures of the accused and on presentation of the cheque, the cheque was returned with endorsement “insufficient funds” -- Bank official-witnesses proved that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it did not contain signatures of the accused rather it was returned due to insufficient funds – Trial court as well as the Appellate Court found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused – Defence that cheque was stolen complainant – No evidence led by accused -- Defence taken that cheque was stolen rejected by the two courts below – No basis for the High court coming to the conclusion that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability.

(SC) Decided on: 02.07.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Limitation -- Admittedly loan was taken in the year 1990, the same could not be claimed by bringing an action through cheque dated 30.08.1997 for recovery of the amount of Rs.25,000/- -- Hence, action in question was clearly barred by law of limitation -- Consequently, the liability under cheque could not be said to be a legally enforceable liability, and, therefore the complaint was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 28.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Money lending license – Onus of proof -- Appeal against acquittal – From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Giving no particulars of the loan amount, as to when it was advanced nor there being any document to support the loan transaction, corroborates the version that the accused has not borrowed the amount – Furthermore, the complainant in the evidence has stated that he himself borrowed the amount on interest @ 3 to 5% -- Defence of the accused is that he has given this cheque to son in 2008 -- Before issuing legal notice to the present accused, the complainant had issued legal notice to son of the accused – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Admission of signature on cheque – Merely on the basis of the admission of signatures by the accused on the cheque in question, he cannot be held guilty for its dishonour without any proof of a legally enforceable liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.11.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Debt of Chit fund business – Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Presumption -- Accused has categorically admitted issuance of cheque to complainant, which on presentation stood dishonoured -- There is a presumption that cheque was issued in discharging of his legal liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- In the complaint it is stated that the accused was on business terms with the complainant and used to borrow money from her from time to time, whereas during cross-examination she has deposed that she was not running any business and has no knowledge regarding the business of the accused – Complainant has failed to produce any accounts books or similar documents – Complainant has failed to establish any monetary liability of the accused towards her -- It is for the complainant to produce the statement of accounts, wherein transactions can be established between the complainant and the accused -- Interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal is perverse or is based on misreading of evidence -- Complainant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court – Prayer for special leave to appeal is declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Cheques issued against alleged loss/damages -- Complainant failed to prove that he suffered any loss on account of alleged late supply of the machinery and was legally entitled to claim any damages from accused -- Even late supply of the machinery is not proved -- Therefore, accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act to prove that there was 'no legally enforceable debt', for which the cheques are stated to have been issued -- Disputed claim of damages, which are not determined by any authority cannot be called debt or legally recoverable debt – No offence u/s 138 of the Act – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Burdon of proof -- Provisions of the N.I.Act lay down that initially, the complainant has to prove the existence of debt and other liabilities and thereafter the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt but was issued by way of security or any other reason on account of some business transaction or was obtained unlawfully.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- No averment in the complaint to show when the loan was given by the complainant to the accused, in whose presence the loan amount was given and at which place – No evidence on the record that what amount has been given as loan and whether any interest etc. was to be paid or not -- No document on the record to show the liability and capacity of the complainant to lend such a huge amount -- No evidence on record that such a huge amount was withdrawn from the bank -- Further, this loan amount is not paid through negotiable instrument, as per provisions of the Income-Tax Act, such a huge amount cannot be paid in cash – Held, it is for the complainant to show that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted from the evidence of the complainant itself -- Reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case and the Courts below have ignored all these facts and convicted the accused/petitioner -- Petitioner is acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious liability -- Every person who was incharge of the business of the Company and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business is vicariously liable apart from the Company itself -- Such a person may be somebody other than a 'Director' so long as he is an officer of the Company -- However, an Ex-officio Director is not liable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Vicarious labially -- For imposing vicarious liability upon the petitioner, as a person responsible for the business of the company, it was necessary to make specific averments in the complaint regarding his role in the conduct of the business of the Company -- No such averment having been made, the Magistrate was not justified in summoning the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Drawer of cheque -- Appellant-complainant supplied goods to M/s. Shah Agencies – Accused carried their business in the names of M/s. Shah Enterprises and M/s. Shah Agencies -- In part discharge of the liability of M/s. Shah Agencies, two cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each were issued by the accused on an account maintained by M/s. Shah Enterprises – Cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund -- Case made out in the complaint was that the goods were sold and supplied to M/s. Shah Enterprises and the liability was of M/s. Shah Enterprises -- While in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the Complainant came out with a case that the liability was that of M/s. Shah Agencies as goods were sold and supplied to M/s. Shah Agencies and it was not the case of the appellant that the accused had agreed to take over and discharge the liabilities of M/s. Shah Agencies – Acquittal of accused upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 16.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Legally enforceable liability – Admittedly loan was taken in the year 1990, the same could not be claimed by bringing an action through cheque dated 30.08.1997 for recovery of the amount of Rs.25,000/- -- Hence, action in question was clearly barred by law of limitation -- Consequently, the liability under cheque could not be said to be a legally enforceable liability, and, therefore the complaint was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 28.09.2017

Cheque bounce case – Security cheque -- Post-dated cheque – (i) Where the borrower agrees to repay the loan within a specified timeline and issues a cheque for security but defaults in repaying the loan within the timeline, the cheque matures for presentation. When the cheque is sought to be encashed by the debtor and is dishonoured, Section 138 of the Act will be attracted; (ii) However, the cardinal rule when a cheque is issued for security is that between the date on which the cheque is drawn to the date on which the cheque matures, the loan could be repaid through any other mode. It is only where the loan is not repaid through any other mode within the due date that the cheque would mature for presentation; and (iii) If the loan has been discharged before the due date or if there is an ‘altered situation’, then the cheque shall not be presented for encashment.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Civil remedy -- Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Security cheque – Cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same -- On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated u/s 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Money lender’s License -- From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Money lender’s License -- Loan on interest -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Commission agent-Farmers relationship -- Case set up by the complainant is that he used to advance loan to agriculturalists, who sell or promise to sell their agricultural produce through him and interest was charged as per prevalent rate in the area of Mandi – Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Money lender’s License -- Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complainant used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but he did not possess any money lender's licence -- Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 is applicable to the State of Haryana -- Section 4(2) postulates that no money lender shall carry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1) -- Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall be dismissed, unless the money-lender is registered and holds a valid license – Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers – Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque by son – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – In complaint no liability against accused – No evidence on record to show that accused ever stood surety or given in writing any undertaking to repay the loan of his father – Branch Manager admitted that no loan was taken by the accused – Cheque in question issued by the accused is not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt against the State – No ground to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2017

Acquittal of accused -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent from his bank account or from any other source -- In the absence of any document that the applicant had the alleged amount with him, it is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.32 lacs to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record – Leave to appeal stands declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2015

Cheque bounce case – No documentation -- No document on record to show the loan transaction -- No income tax return has been produced to show the lending of the amount in question to the accused -- All these facts are fatal to the case of the complainant. Vijay’s case, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 1028 (SC) relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2019

Cheque bounce case – No document on record to show the loan transaction -- No income tax return has been produced to show the lending of the amount in question to the accused -- All these facts are fatal to the case of the complainant.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.05.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Legal enforceable liability – Rebuttal of presumption -- Defence was that the cheque was issued to the complainant on an assurance of a loan which would be obtained from a financial institution – Entire amount alleged to have been paid without obtaining a receipt or document evidencing the payment of the amount – Complainant failed to establish the source of funds -- Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the accused -- Non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction – Presumption stands rebutted -- Order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court was justified.

(SC) Decided on: 18.01.2019

Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Complainant himself was under debt -- Accused has placed on record account statement of the complainant, which shows that the complainant was not having that much sufficient amount in his account to advance it to the accused – Cheque belongs to the cheque book issued in the year 2007 whereas, another cheque book was issued to the accused on 06.03.2010 and the Court held that why the accused would issue cheque in the year 2011 from the old cheque book -- There is difference of handwriting in the body of the cheque and signatures -- Keeping in view the above evidence, Ld. trial Court held defence by the accused is probable – Accused acquitted -- No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Acquittal of accused -- No date, month and year has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the loan was given -- If the amount was given for the business purposes, then it looks unnatural that there were no terms and conditions to pay the interest -- Furthermore, no receipt or security document has been obtained at the time of advancing such a huge amount -- No particulars of loan transactions have been mentioned by stating that at which place and in whose presence this amount was given -- Furthermore, there is also no particular as to when the loan was demanded back -- Accused is entitled to acquittal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.02.2017

Rebuttal of Presumption – No date, month and year has been mentioned in the complainant as to when liability arose -- No document to show the loan transaction -- No receipt or security document was got executed while lending a huge amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused – Complainant is also doing business of shuttering and might be maintaining account books but he has also not produced any account books to show this loan transaction -- Complainant himself has stated that he could not tell exact date of advancement of loan of Rs.3 lakhs but stated in cross-examination that it was in the month of October 2012 – Presumption u/s 139 rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Rebuttal of Presumption – In the complaint, it has been simply stated that the loan of Rs.8 lakhs was advanced to the accused in the month of March 2015 -- No specific date has been mentioned -- No other particulars have been given -- No security document had been obtained from the accused -- Complainant had also not taken any receipt of the loan -- There is no document on record to show the loan transaction -- There is no date as to when the loan was demanded back -- In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he does not know accused and his family personally he knows them through brother-in-law of the accused -- Complainant admits that a sale deed was executed in his favour by the mother of the accused and further three cases were withdrawn by him -- All this evidence supports the defence version raised by the accused -- Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- Leave to file appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Petitioner ready to surrender and apply for regular bail -- Petitioner is resident of Delhi -- Considering the limited prayer direction given that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court within a period of 15 days, the trial Court will not insist upon furnishing a local surety and will accept any other surety/security bonds, on the basis of property offered by the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.04.2022

Cheque bounce case – Denial of signature on cheques -- Case of the accused that the three cheques were lost but neither any complaint to the police nor any information was given to the bank qua the same at any stage -- Accused/ petitioner has denied his signatures on the cheques in question, but has failed to produce any expert nor any such objection has been raised by the drawee bank -- Adverse inference drawn against the petitioner/accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.02.2020

Acquittal of accused – Complainant could have approached High Court seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court -- However, the appeal before the Sessions Court was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2015

Second notice – Cause of action – Respondent issued notices, although, the notice was duly served, the Respondent did not take any steps to file the complaint within the period prescribed – Held, a cheque may be presented several times within the period of its validity, the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act arises but once, with the issuance of notice after dishonour of the cheque and the receipt thereof by the drawer – Ld. Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the complaints filed on the basis of the second notices, High Court also wrongly affirmed the same – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2010

Second statutory notice – Cheques were presented twice and notices were issued on 31.08.2009 and 25.01.2010 -- Complaint filed based on the second statutory notice is not barred.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Complaint through attorney -- Mother of the Applicant-complainant appeared as his general attorney after due permission from the Court on acceptance of her application to permit her to file complaint and pursue the same as attorney -- Maintainability of the complaint is well-proved on the record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2018

Issuance of cheque by client as percentage – Dishonour of – Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint u/s 138 of the Act -- Claim of the respondent advocate being against public policy and being an act of professional misconduct, proceedings in the complaint filed by him have to be held to be abuse of the process of law and have to be quashed -- Issue of professional misconduct is left to be dealt with at the appropriate forum.

(SC) Decided on: 05.12.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Chit fund business – Legally enforceability of – Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Bahi entries – Evidential value of -- Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act -- Entry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise -- Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability -- Commission agents used to obtain such blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legal liability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it -- Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Time barred debt – In case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, then, it cannot be termed to have been issued, in lieu of legally enforceable liability/debt within the meaning of section 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Money Lending License -- Complainant used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but he did not possess any money lender's licence -- Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 is applicable to the State of Haryana -- Section 4(2) postulates that no money lender shall carry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1) -- Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall be dismissed, unless the money-lender is registered and holds a valid license – Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers – Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – SICA proceedings -- Section 22 SICA only creates an embargo against disposal of assets of the company for recovery of its debts -- Purpose of such an embargo is to preserve the assets of the company from being attached or sold for realisation of dues of the creditors -- Section does not bar payment of money by the company or its directors to other persons for satisfaction of their legally enforceable dues -- Section 22 SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case on the allegations of an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act against a company or its Directors.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – Company declared Sick -- For instance, before the date on which the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days after notice, a restraint order of the BIFR u/s 22-A was passed against the company then it cannot be said that the offence u/s 138 NI Act was completed -- In such a case it may reasonably be said that the dishonoring of the cheque by the bank and failure to make payment of the amount by the company and/or its Directors is for reasons beyond the control of the accused -- In such circumstances it would be unjust and unfair and against the intent and purpose of the statute to hold that the Directors should be compelled to face trial in a criminal case.

(SC) Decided on: 23.02.2000

Prosecution of the Company/ Directors – Effect of SICA proceedings – Section 138 of NI Act was introduced in 1988 when SICA was already in vogue -- Parliament did not think it necessary to exclude companies falling u/s 22 of SICA from the operation thereof -- Held, if commission of the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act was completed before the commencement of proceedings u/s 22(1) of SICA there is no hurdle in any of the provisions of SICA against the maintainability and prosecution of a criminal complaint duly instituted u/s 142 of the NI Act.

(SC) Decided on: 15.02.2000

Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – On account of absence of complainant on one occasion dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution was not justified, since, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, non-suiting the parties on technical grounds -- Present petition challenging the impugned order is maintainable and no fault can be found with the same -- Petition accepted; impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored at its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Complaint was premature and not maintainable -- Impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings taken therein are quashed – Permission given to complainant to file fresh complaint within one month -- Delay in filing the complaint will be treated as having been condoned under the proviso to clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Intermediatory order -- Application of complainant to examine two witnesses rejected by Magistrate -- It is an Intermediatory order and is clearly a revisable order -- In the scheme of hierarchy, the party should seek invocation from the lowest court if there is concurrent jurisdiction -- Petitioner should seek redressal of his grievance before Court of Session under Section 399 Cr.P.C. as it would be more appropriate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.03.2016

Blank Cheque -- Filling in the blank shall not be always required to be treated as a material alteration -- Alteration in the common parlance is understood to mean, something already been written has been changed/altered subsequently -- Alteration is not synonymous to the word “filling up the unfilled column or space” -- Alteration is permissible, if it is made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Cheque bounce case -- It is trite that mens rea is the quintessential of every crime -- Objective of Parliament was to strengthen the use of cheques, distinct from other negotiable instruments, as mercantile tender and therefore it became essential for the Section 138 NI Act offence to be freed from the requirement of proving mens rea -- Offence is committed no sooner the drawee bank returns the cheque unpaid.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Case of accused is that he had only borrowed a sum of Rs.6000/- from complainant when he issued a blank cheque but subsequently, the same has been converted to an amount of Rs.6 lac -- Amount of Rs.6000/- has also been allegedly repaid by accused to complainant but to the utter surprise, no receipt in this regard was obtained -- Even, no effort has also been made by accused to get the cheque returned from complainant -- Such a lapse and omission on the part of accused is suggestive of the fact that defence plea, which has been put by him is a concocted one.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Cheque bounce case – Complainant having visiting terms with accused -- Since accused was in dire need of money, loan amount Rs.5,40,000/- with an agreement was advanced – Accused issued a Cheque of Rs. 5 lacs – Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds -- Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint observing that for entering into loan transaction, a licence under Money Lender's Act was necessary – Held, the approach of the trial Magistrate was misconceived and erroneous -- Dismissing the complaint for the reason of complainant having been found to be a professional money lender practicing money lending without licence is not sustainable – Appeal allowed, matter remanded back.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Legal enforceable liability -- Onus of proof -- From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Loan on interest -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Legal issue -- Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complainant used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but he did not possess any money lender's licence -- Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 is applicable to the State of Haryana -- Section 4(2) postulates that no money lender shall carry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1) -- Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall be dismissed, unless the money-lender is registered and holds a valid license – Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers – Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014

Cheque bounce case -- Dismissal from service -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Dispute was of private nature -- Offence at best, though has a criminal colour to it cannot be held to be an offence involving moral turpitude – Dismissal from service simplicitor on the ground of conviction u/s 138 of the Act without holding a regular inquiry, as envisaged under the Rules, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside -- Removal from service is set aside -- Petitioner would be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.05.2017

Conviction in cheque bounce case – Termination of service -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act even though have a criminal colour cannot be termed to be such as the genesis of the dispute essentially arising from a civil transaction which should not, therefore, ordinarily have any bearing on the service of an employee -- Punishment order of termination of services of the petitioner is extremely harsh – Termination order set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2015

Criminal liability in cheque bounce case -- Corporate debtor – Natural persons -- Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Service of summons – High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Criminal liability in cheque bounce case -- Moratorium period – Corporate debtor – Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Rebuttal of presumption of legal enforceable liability – Presumptions raised u/s 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature – A probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of “preponderance of probability”, and not mere possibility -- Bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of accused.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sentence to accused -- While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court possesses exercises all the powers conferred on an Appellate Court to alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Source of fund – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- Conviction by trial court affirmed by Appellate court -- High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that, in the complaint, the Complainant has not specifically stated the nature of transactions and the source of fund. Held, -- High Court has failed to note the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act – Once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability – High Court has also failed to appreciate that the High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction and there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused quashed and set aside -- Accused granted two months’ time to pay the fine, as ordered by the learned first Appellate Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Admission of signatures on cheque -- Presumption of legally enforceable debt -- Petitioner/accused has not been able to disown the factum of issuance of cheques in favour of the complainant and nor has come out with any convincing explanation as regards the reasons for which the said cheques were issued by him -- Once the signatures of the petitioner on the cheques in question are not disputed, a presumption can safely be drawn in favour of the holder as regards the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Illegal activity -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.11.2022

Section 138 – Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 269 SS – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of Clerk/ bank official with records of cheque – Diet money already stands deposited by the petitioner -- No force in the finding recorded by the court below that the application is to fulfill the lacuna in the light of the fact that application u/s 311 CrPC was made much prior in time before closing of the evidence by the petitioner – Case is fixed for defence evidence, in that eventuality if the application u/s Section 311 CrPC is allowed, no prejudice is going to be caused to the parties and rather, it would be in the interest of justice to provide one opportunity -- One opportunity granted subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 401 -- Conviction of accused by trial court – Ex-parte dismissal of appeal -- Held, impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and her counsel which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the matter directly relates to life and liberty of the applicant-petitioner, thus, it would be travesty of justice and violation of principles of natural justice -- Impugned order passed by the ld. ASJ set aside -- Petitioner directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 21.11.2022, no adjournment shall be granted and ld. ASJ, shall hear and decide the appeal on the date fixed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Additional documents by complainant – Petitioner/ complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents -- No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence -- Purpose of trial is to elicit truth -- Trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution -- Petitioner permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137 – Cheque bounce case -- Closing of cross-examination -- Trial Court closed the cross examination of CW-1 without taking note of the absence of the lawyer for the petitioners – Stated that non-appearance was due to demise of father of petitioners' counsel and this fact was also brought to the notice of the concerned Court -- Order set aside and parties permitted to appear before the trial Court subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not seek any further adjournment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 21.10.2022 Decided on: 01.11.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 406 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Transfer of complaint – Exemption form appearance -- Complaint cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused -- Petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen, therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance -- If an application is made by the petitioner for grant of exemption, the learned trial Judge shall favorably consider the same -- Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial – Transfer petition dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- West Bengal to Kerala -- Petitioner states that the entire transaction of loan, for which the cheque was alleged to have been issued, had taken place at Calicut, Kerala – Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Calcutta (Kolkata), West Bengal is invoked as the cheque was presented in a Bank, which was within the jurisdiction of that Court – In such circumstances, it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the complaint to the Court at Kerala – Petition allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.10.2022

Section 138, 147 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Compounding of offence after conviction -- Compromise after 10 years of litigation -- Three different Courts in hierarchy upholding conviction -- A sum of Rs.69 lakhs paid to the complainant and he does not want to proceed against the petitioner any further – Held, mere compromise entered into by the parties may not be sufficient to close the proceedings -- Looking to the quantification of default amount, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs ordered to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Advocates Welfare Fund within a period of two months.

(SC) Decided on: 18.10.2022

Section 138 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Reduction in sentence – Cheque amount was Rs.70,000/- -- Sentence was to pay twice the amount of cheque and to suffer imprisonment for one month -- Amount of fine of Rs.1,40,000/- paid, sentence modified to Rs.1,40,000/- apart from the litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- by setting aside the order of imprisonment for one month.

(SC) Decided on: 13.10.2022

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan account -- Security/ post-dated cheque – (i) Where the borrower agrees to repay the loan within a specified timeline and issues a cheque for security but defaults in repaying the loan within the timeline, the cheque matures for presentation. When the cheque is sought to be encashed by the debtor and is dishonoured, Section 138 of the Act will be attracted; (ii) However, the cardinal rule when a cheque is issued for security is that between the date on which the cheque is drawn to the date on which the cheque matures, the loan could be repaid through any other mode. It is only where the loan is not repaid through any other mode within the due date that the cheque would mature for presentation; and (iii) If the loan has been discharged before the due date or if there is an ‘altered situation’, then the cheque shall not be presented for encashment.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Security/ post-dated cheque – Interpretation of Section 138 of N.I. Act -- Interpretation must not permit dishonesty of the drawee of the cheque as well -- Though a post-dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment -- If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment, then the offence u/s 138 is not made out.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 15, 56, 138 – Cheque bounce case – Legal enforceable liability – Security/ post-dated cheque – Part payment – Endorsement on cheque – Requirement of -- Section 56 stipulates that if there is an endorsement on a negotiable instrument that a part of the sum mentioned in the cheque has been paid, then the instrument may be negotiated for the balance -- If the endorsed cheque when presented for encashment of the balance amount is dishonoured, then the drawee can take recourse to the provisions of Section 138 -- Cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment -- If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence u/s 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 56, 138 – Offence u/s 138 of NI Act -- Cheque bounce case – Security/ post-dated cheque – Part payment – Endorsement of – Requirement of -- (i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation; (ii) If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque; (iii) When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any -- If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complaints in Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan -- Case of the petitioner that the complaints have been filed u/s 138 at different places by the respondents who are total strangers -- According to her, it is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute and it is her case that the complaints have been orchestrated by her husband – Cases transferred to the competent Court at New Delhi.

(SC) Decided on: 11.10.2022

Section 118, 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Legal presumption u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act – Time barred debt – Quashing of summoning order -- Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available u/s 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act -- Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the accused u/s Section 482 of the CrPC.

(SC) Decided on: 10.10.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXIX – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Bangalore to Delhi – Case of the petitioners that they have to first go to Delhi and then travel to the said place where the trial is currently being held and they would have to bring their witnesses, on the other hand, respondent has a corporate office at New Delhi – Held, interest of justice would be subserved if the cases are transferred to the competent Court in New Delhi -- Cases transferred from Bangalore to Delhi.

(SC) Decided on: 19.09.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce case – Additional evidence -- Section 311 can be exercised at any stage of the trial -- Only test prescribed as to whether such evidence which is being sought to be produced by resorting to Section 311 of the Code is essential to the just decision of the case or not – Trial Court has not given any finding as such – Impugned order set aside, Trial Court directed to decide the application afresh by testing the application on the touchstone of 'whether the evidence sought to be produced is essential for the just decision of the case or not'.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 29.08.2022 Pronounced on: 16.09.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Delhi to Madhya Pradesh -- Alleged transactions took place in the district of Raisen in the State of Madhya Pradesh -- Cheques were also drawn in Madhya Pradesh – Ends of justice would be served if the complaints pending before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi transferred to the Competent Court in District Raisen, Madhya Pradash.

(SC) Decided on: 01.09.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Tamil Nadu to Haryana -- Sole-respondent is shown to be a resident of Delhi and his office address is indicated as being situated in Haryana -- Keeping in view the fact that the transfer of the petitions would be to the convenience of both the parties, the prayer of the petitioner is accordingly accepted – Complaint transferred.

(SC) Decided on: 30.08.2022

Section 138, 141 (2)(a) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act against Proprietor -- Proprietorship Firm not made party – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order – Statutory signification assigned to a 'Company', does visibly cover not only any corporate body, but also covers a firm, or other association of individuals -- Held, Sole proprietary entity though is obviously solitarily owned, yet, the said juristic person, or, legal entity rather becomes 'a person' committing an offence u/s 138, and, besides the said juristic person, is also a 'Company' – Therefore, not only the juristic entity concerned, was amenable for being arrayed as an accused in the petition complaint, but also all those persons responsible to the sole proprietary concern , for the conduct of its business -- Complaint reveals that the sole proprietary concern has not been arrayed as an accused, but only its sole proprietor has been arrayed as an accused – Petition allowed complaint u/s of the N.I. Act as well as, the summoning order both are quashed and set aside.

(P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.08.2022 Pronounced on: 26.08.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Gujarat to Mumbai -- Trial at fag end – Complaint in 2016, thereafter, the respondent has filed a suit for recovery of the amount subject matter of the cheque in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and one more suit for injunction in a Court in Mumbai – Trial in the complaint has substantially progressed and even a statement of the petitioner u/s 313 of the Cr.PC has been recorded – At this stage, the prayer for transfer of the complaint cannot be entertained.

(SC) Decided on: 18.08.2022

Section 38, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Cheque signed by drawer – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act/ Cheque towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability – Rebuttal of -- Handwriting expert to examine writing on cheque – Permissibility of – High Court permitted to engage a hand-writing expert to seek an opinion on whether “the authorship on the questioned writings” (the disputed cheque) can be attributed to the respondents -- Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over -- Presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert -- No purpose served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert – Order of High Court set aside, appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- Nature of transaction -- Source of fund – Requirement of -- Conviction by trial court affirmed by Appellate court -- High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that, in the complaint, the Complainant has not specifically stated the nature of transactions and the source of fund. Held, -- High Court has failed to note the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act – Once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability – High Court has also failed to appreciate that the High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction and there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused quashed and set aside -- Accused granted two months’ time to pay the fine, as ordered by the learned first Appellate Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cause of action – Pre-mature complaint – Second complaint -- Demand notice period of 15 days not expired -- Complaint filed before fifteen days -- In view of the legal bar created by Section 142 of the NI Act, taking of cognizance by the Court was contrary to the law and the complaint was not maintainable -- Respondent would be at liberty to institute a fresh complaint and to seek the benefit of the proviso by satisfying the trial court of sufficient cause for the delay in instituting the complaint.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Section 138 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act -- Upheld by Supreme Court – Compromise/ Settlement between parties – Recalling of order -- In view of the statement made and as full payment has been made along with compensation, order recalled and the special leave petition restored to its original number – Leave granted, impugned order upholding the conviction of the appellant would be treated as settled and compounded -- Appeal allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 08.08.2022

Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(SC) Decided on: 22.07.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Revision -- Allegation of forgery against complainant -- Had that been the case, the accused would have certainly filed a criminal complaint in that regard -- No effort has been made to examine any expert either -- Further, there is no denial by the petitioner to the signatures upon the cheque -- Except bald assertion, the accused has not been able to raise a probable defence even while referring to the cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses – No infirmity in the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the ld. Appellate Court – No merit, revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Revision -- Reduction of sentence -- Cheque amounting Rs.4,58,000/- -- Sentenced to R.I. for one year, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case default sentence of one month -- Conduct of the petitioner is extremely disturbing, firstly, did not appear at the time the Appeal was pending before the ASJ and was declared a proclaimed offender and was released on interim bail -- Petitioner continued as such for a period of approximately three years -- When the matter came up for hearing before High Court, an assurance was given that he would surrender and file a revision petition, however the petitioner was untraceable -- No mitigating circumstances for reducing his sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2022

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Opportunity to cross-examine witness -- Petitioner adopting delaying tactics and wants to prolong the adjudication -- Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, one and last opportunity grated to the petitioner to cross examine subject to payment of cost of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to complainant.

(SC) Decided on: 15.07.2022

Section 138, 147 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused after grant of bail – Cancellation of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however, did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Cheque bounce case – 20% pre-deposit of compensation – Extension of time-- Addl. Session Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 20% amount of compensation by 04.06.2022 vide order dated 26.04.2022 – High Court extended time upto 30.06.2022 by taking sympathetic consideration.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Out of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2500/- was to be paid to the complainant – High Court reduced the sentence from one year to three months – Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(SC) Decided on: 19.05.2022

Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Signatures on cheque not disputed – Effect of -- Undisputed signatures of the respondent/accused on the cheque in itself is not sufficient for conviction u/s 138 of the Act -- One of the ingredient for succeeding u/s 138 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.05.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Bailable case – Need of anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389, 421, 446 – Conviction in 4 cheque bounce cases – Suspension of sentence in appeals – Brother/Appellant stood surety for Rs. 1 lac – Convict/Appellant in appeals absented and bail bond/ surety bond forfeited – Appellate court directed the surety/appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac each in four cases – Recovery warrants issued – Convict/ Appellant has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court -- Absence of convict/ appellant was beyond the control of the Surety/appellant – Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.05.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Section 138, 143(A) – Cheque bounce case – Interim compensation – Opportunity of hearing –Trial Court granted interim compensation u/s 143(A) just in a routine manner and there is no application of mind as to why the said compensation has to be awarded – No opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his response, before passing of the impugned order – Trial Court misread Section 143(A) and treated the said provision as mandatory in nature, whereas the legal position is otherwise – Matter remanded back to learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter regarding grant of interim compensation to the complainant in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Suspension of sentence in appeal with pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation – Held, pre-condition as imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, cannot be found fault with, being legal and in consonance with the provisions of Section 148 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.04.2022

Section 138, 147 -- Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Cheque amount paid -- No one appeared to oppose the application on behalf of the private respondent, in spite of service of notice -- Since amount of both the dishonoured cheques (each of Rs.1,00,000/-) has been paid and the disputes have been compromised, the offence may be compounded -- Sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 401, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Exemption from 15% of Cheque amount -- Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.04.2022

Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of non-bailable warrants – Petitioner ready to surrender and apply for regular bail -- Further submitted that since the petitioner is resident of Delhi, he has no local surety and he can furnish security bonds as per valuation certificate regarding his residential house, therefore, the trial Court may be directed to accept the bail/security bonds in this regard – Considering the limited prayer direction given that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court within a period of 15 days, the trial Court will not insist upon furnishing a local surety and will accept any other surety/security bonds, on the basis of property offered by the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.04.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Pre-condition to deposit 20% of compensation -- Petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, as a pre-condition for his suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal – Petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case – Compromise at revisional stage – Waiver of cost of 15% of cheque amount -- Petitioner has a poor financial condition is apparent from the fact that the complainant has agreed to finally settle the matter for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, although, the cheque was for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- -- Petitioner is a 51 year old lady who is stated to be having no source of livelihood and with great difficulty, she has repaid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant -- Keeping in view the said special facts and circumstances, this Court deemed it appropriate that no costs should be imposed upon the petitioner -- Revision allowed and judgments of Lower Courts set aside and the petitioner acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction in -- Appeal against -- Suspension of sentence -- Non-deposit of 20% compensation within 60 days -- Submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount equivalent to 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation during the proceedings of trial and that the petitioner presently is facing a financial crunch and is unable to deposit another 20% though he has a good case on merits -- Lower Appellate Court directed to take necessary steps to hear the appeal and dispose off the same in the given time – If the petitioner or his counsel is not present on the dates fixed, it shall be open to the Lower Appellate Court to nominate any counsel from Free Legal Aid.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXIX – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Karnataka to Telangana – Matter pending before the Court at Hubli, Dharwad District, Karnataka transferred to Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State where the petitioners are residing.

(SC) Decided on: 21.02.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2022

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446A -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(P&H HC) Decided on:11.01.2022

Section 138 -- Return of complaint – Delay in refiling -- Patiala House Court returned the original complaint to present it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, i. e. Saket Court on 25.08.2014, the physical copy of which was received by the complainant on 13.10.2015 and complaint was refiled with the Saket Court on 4.11.2015 – Saket Court not accepted the complaint on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days as per direction – High Court affirmed the same – If view accepted, without deciding the complaint on merits the accused would be acquitted and the complainant would be without any remedy – Orders passed by Saket Court and High Court set aside -- Saket Court directed to accept the refiled complaint and decide same in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(SC) Decided on: 06.01.2022

Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 389 -- Conviction in Cheque bounce case – Non-compliance of 20% deposit of compensation – Cancellation of bail -- R.I. for a period of one year and to pay Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation and in default further R.I. for three months – Appellate court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation within a period of 60 days -- Instead of depositing, the petitioner chose to file review and the same was dismissed, statutory period of 90 days for compliance elapsed -- Consequently, petitioner’s bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State -- After a period of about more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.11.2021

Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheque bounce case -- Cheating -- Amount advanced towards the business transaction and loan agreement entered into between the parties -- Period for repayment was agreed and the cheque issued to ensure repayment -- Mere dishonour of the cheque cannot be construed as an act with a deliberate intention to cheat and the mens rea in that regard cannot be gathered from the point the amount had been received -- No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan agreement – Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- A cheque cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance -- If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a specified timeframe and issues a cheque as security to secure such repayment; if the loan amount is not repaid in any other form before the due date or if there is no other understanding or agreement between the parties to defer the payment of amount, the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same -- On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated u/s 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan transaction – Civil remedy -- Security cheque – Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 -- Prior discharge of the loan or there being an altered situation due to which there would be understanding between the parties is a sine qua non to not present the cheque which was issued as security -- Holder of the cheque/drawee would have the option of initiating the civil proceedings for recovery or the criminal proceedings for punishment in the fact situation, but in any event, it is not for the drawer of the cheque to dictate terms with regard to the nature of litigation.

(SC) Decided on: 28.10.2021

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Non-waiver of – Reasoning for – Requirement of -- While dealing with the exceptional circumstances, the Court has to justify the direction for waiver by assigning reasons – If a prayer for waiver of pre-deposit has been made before the Appellate Court, the minimum requirement for compliance of principle of natural justice would be that the litigant comes to know from the order passed that the plea raised by him were considered and dealt with -- Supreme Court decision was not considered -- It is not forth coming from the order that the pleas raised by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit were dealt with, it is so, as the Court proceeded on the basis that there is no discretion for waiver -- Impugned orders are set aside -- Petitions disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Appellate Court, to consider the application for suspension of sentence and prayer for waiver of pre-deposit afresh in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deswal's case 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 2956 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10018 = 2019 (1) L.A.R. 21.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2021

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 N.I. Act -- Revisional jurisdiction – Condition of pre-deposit of fine/ compensation – Trial court sentenced fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, in the event of default, appellant/ convict would undergo S.I. for six months -- Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State – High Court ordered unless the fine amount is deposited, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing the petition filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C – Held, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing of the revision petition – Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 04.08.2021

Section 138, 143 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 260 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Conversion of trial -- Summon trial – Summary trial – Role of Magistrate -- Object of Section 143 of the Act is quick disposal of the complaints u/s 138 by following the procedure prescribed for summary trial under the Code, to the extent possible -- Discretion conferred on the Magistrate by the second proviso to Section 143 is to be exercised with due care and caution, after recording reasons for converting the trial of the complaint from summary trial to summons trial -- High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints u/s 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138, 145 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry by Magistrate – Requirement of -- Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138, 145 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Cheque bounce case -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry by Magistrate – Procedure of -- Held, section 202 (2) of the Code is inapplicable to complaints u/s 138 in respect of examination of witnesses on oath – For the conduct of inquiry u/s Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit -- In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138, 145 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 219, 220 – Cheque bounce case -- Multiple complaints – Service of summons – Common trial -- Recommended that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences u/s 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code -- High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 258, 322 – Summoning of accused – Review of -- Judgments in Adalat Prasad, (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman (2004) 13 SCC 324 have interpreted the law correctly -- Reiterated that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons -- This does not affect the power of the Trial Court u/s 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint – Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints u/s 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments, (2018) 1 SCC 560 do not lay down correct law.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 401 -- Appeal/ Revision in cheque bounce case -- Settling the dispute through mediation – High Courts requested to identify the pending revisions arising out of complaints filed u/s 138 of the Act and refer them to mediation at the earliest -- Courts before which appeals against judgments in complaints u/s 138 of the Act are pending should be directed to make an effort to settle the disputes through mediation.

(SC) Decided on: 16.04.2021

Section 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal by trial court – Conviction by High Court -- Appellant has only recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration -- Once the facts came on record remained unrebutted and supported with the evidence on record with no substantive evidence of defence of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against her – Appellant has been rightly convicted.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Object of introducing Section 138 and other provisions of Chapter XVII in the Act appears to be to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities -- Drawer of the cheque be held liable to prosecution on dishonour of cheque with safeguards provided to prevent harassment of honest drawers.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption of consideration – Onus to rebut – Scope of evidence -- There is a mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Act and the onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act -- To rebut this presumption, facts must be adduced by the accused which on a preponderance of probability (not beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of criminal offences), must then be proved.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Principle of acquittal in criminal cases -- Applicability of -- Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act are quasi-criminal in nature, and the principles which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases are not applicable in the cases instituted under the Act.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Cheque bounce case – After cheques being bounced, two separate legal notices were served, even after receiving the said notices, the appellant neither responded to the notices nor made any payment within the statutory period of fifteen days – When the complainant exhibited all documents in support of his complaints and recorded the statement of three witnesses in support thereof, the appellant has recorded her statement u/s 313 of the Code, but failed to record evidence to disprove or rebut the presumption in support of her defence -- Statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 of the Code is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused -- No evidence to rebut the presumption -- Held, High Court, has not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed u/s 138 of the Act, which needs no further interference -- Appeals being without any substance, dismissed.

(SC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Joint liability/debt – Cheque by one – No joint account with drawer – Not a signatory to cheque – Quashing of complaint -- A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque -- Section 141 of the NI Act is relating to the offence by companies and it cannot be made applicable to the individuals – Held, High Court committed a grave error in not quashing the complaint against the appellant/wife -- Criminal complaint filed against the appellant can be said to be abuse of process of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 08.03.2021

Section 138, 141 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 14 – Moratorium period – Corporate debtor – Natural persons -- Criminal liability in cheque bounce case -- Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC, by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted would then become applicable -- Moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Section 138/141 proceeding against a corporate debtor is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Sections 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Admission of signatures on cheque -- Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of -- Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative -- Obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him – Held, once the 2nd Appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed of undertaking, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt -- Trial Court fell in error when it called upon the Complainant-Respondent to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay -- Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position and amounts to a patent error of law.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- Presumptions raised u/s 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature – A probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of “preponderance of probability”, and not mere possibility -- Bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of accused.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Blank signed cheque and stamp papers – Legal enforceable liability -- Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- Even if the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 138, 139, Chapter XVII – Cheque bounce matters – Criminal and civil liability – Redressal of -- Object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive -- Provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realisation of the cheque amount -- There needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and unless there exist special circumstances, the Courts should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Sections 138, 139 –Cheque bounce case – Sentence and compensation -- Neither did the respondent ask for compensation before the High Court nor has he chosen to challenge the High Court’s judgment -- Since, he has accepted the High Court’s verdict, his claim for compensation stands impliedly overturned -- Respondent, in any case, is entitled to receive the cheque amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs which the appellant has already deposited with the Registry of Court -- Appellant No.2 shall not be required to undergo the awarded sentence -- Registry is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.11.20 lakhs along with interest accrued thereupon to the respondent within two weeks.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2021

Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Declaration of Proclaimed Person – Challenge to -- Complaint is u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881, which is a bailable offence, petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may appear before the learned trial Court on or before 27.01.2021 -- On his doing so, he shall be enlarged on bail by the trial Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforementioned FIR alive -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declared as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.12.2020

ection 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Deposit of 20% amount of fine or compensation – Power of Appellate Court -- Amount is required to be deposited within a period of 60 days which may further be extended by another 30 days -- Lower Appellate Court having granted one month’s period only for depositing the amount, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act -- Error needs to be rectified.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 138, 142 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138, 142 NI Act, 420 IPC compromised between the parties and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint – Held, continuation of the proceedings including the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 174-A of IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.12.2020

Section 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006), Section 17(1)(a)(b) -- Food adulteration case -- Company not convicted – Nominated person held guilty – Legality of – Remand to fill lacuna of case – Permissibility of -- No material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the Company as well as the Nominated Person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly -- Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint -- Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -- Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant/Nominated Person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years -- Order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable.

(SC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance in Trail – Presence ordered to secure through warrant of arrest -- Anticipatory bail -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Resultantly, his presence was ordered to be secured through warrant of arrest – Petition disposed of, accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court -- Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in accordance with law -- Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to warrant of arrest already issued against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Held, if the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the condition that he would deposit Rs. 1.00 lac with the trial Court by way of demand draft in favour of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the said demand draft be deposited in a fixed deposit with bank, fetching the maximum rate of interest.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, Rule 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Summoning of accused – Challenge to -- Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Account of the Company was frozen by virtue of orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the NCLT -- All the moveable and immoveable assets of the Company have been taken over – Held, cheque in question is dated 12.06.2017, which was dishonoured on 29.07.2017 i.e. much prior to the passing of the order by the NCLT -- Even the legal notice dated 26.08.2017 served upon the petitioner is prior to commencement of IBC proceedings – Petitioner cannot thus take ruse under NCLT order passed after the institution of impugned complaint and passing of the summoning order.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person/offender – Quashing petition on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Summoning order and order declaring proclaimed person/offender quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Declaration of proclaimed person -- Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Section 138 -- Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed Person – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Legality of – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Section 138, 143-A, 147, 148 – Cheque bounce case – Not an offence against society – Imposition of sentence -- Offence u/s 138 of the Act is quasi criminal in nature -- It is not an offence against society and an accused can escape punishment by settling with the complainant -- Thus, while imposing a sentence u/s 138 of the Act, the Court must be alive to the concern of the Legislature in inserting Chapter XVII in the Act and then amending the provisions thereof to make the same more stringent as well as the jurisprudential principles of deterrence and restoration and that the offence is quasi criminal in nature.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Section 138, 143-A, 147, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386, 401 (1) – Cheque bounce case -- Sentence to accused -- Revisional power – Nature of -- While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court possesses exercises all the powers conferred on an Appellate Court to alter the nature or the extent or the nature and extent of the sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Section 138, 147 – Cheque bounce case – Cheque amount of Rs.4 lacs -- Maximum sentence of R.I. for two years imposed -- Compensation of payment of the cheque amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque till the date of the judgment also awarded -- Award of maximum sentence is held to be arbitrary -- Petitioner is a poor person and having undergone a protracted trial of almost 10 years, also exist -- Sentence is reduced to RI for a period of one year and six months along with payment of compensation as awarded by the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.08.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused -- Compromise at revisional stage – Acquittal from -- Matter can be compromised at the stage of pendency of revisional proceedings before the High Court -- Conviction and sentence of the accused can be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1907 and Sri Ashish Subba’s case 2018 (1) RCR (Criminal) 971 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2020

Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case of Company – Incharge of the affairs of the Company, no document to support – Accused neither Director nor a signatory of cheque -- Quashing of complaint -- (a) The complaint is based on a Memorandum of Understanding, which is not signed by the petitioner and is rather signed by accused No.3. The dishonoured cheques were given to the complainant at the time of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. (b) The cheque numbers of the disputed cheques are duly mentioned in the body of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by accused No.3, which show that he was the person In-charge of the Company as he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of accused No.1-Company and had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. (c) Even the cheques are not signed by the petitioner and the same are signed by accused Nos.2 and 3. (d) In the complaints, the only allegation in para 3 is that accused No.4-petitioner is In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, however, there is no document to support this version and rather in the reply filed by the complainant in High Court, nowhere reflects that the petitioner is the In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, in any manner. (e) There is nothing on record to support the complaints that the petitioner is one Director of accused No.1-Company as it is the case of the petitioner that he never remained the Director of accused No.1-Company at any stage and this fact is not disputed in the reply. Summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.03.2020

Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Cheque lost plea – Denial of signature on cheques -- Case of the accused that the three cheques were lost but neither any complaint to the police nor any information was given to the bank qua the same at any stage -- Accused/ petitioner has denied his signatures on the cheques in question, but has failed to produce any expert nor any such objection has been raised by the drawee bank -- Adverse inference drawn against the petitioner/accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.02.2020

Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Revisional jurisdiction -- In a revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like Court of an appeal - - Not pointed out as to how the findings given by the courts below are perverse or against the evidence -- Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not considered by the courts below -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I.Act arose against the accused and it was first for him to rebut the same -- But he failed to rebut the presumption -- Rather, the complainant led even cogent evidence to prove his case beyond any doubt -- Concurrent findings given by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence in right perspective – Revision dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.02.2020

Section 138 -- Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3, 4 – Cheque bounce case – Money Lending Licence -- Complainant having visiting terms with accused -- Since accused was in dire need of money, loan amount Rs.5,40,000/- with an agreement was advanced – Accused issued a Cheque of Rs. 5 lacs – Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds -- Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint observing that for entering into loan transaction, a licence under Money Lender's Act was necessary – Held, the approach of the trial Magistrate was misconceived and erroneous -- Dismissing the complaint for the reason of complainant having been found to be a professional money lender practicing money lending without licence is not sustainable – Appeal allowed, matter remanded back.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Section 138, 139 – Rebuttal of presumption -- Initial presumption is in favour of holder of the cheque in view of Section 139 of the Act, however, the same is rebuttable -- It is permissible for the accused to rebut the same on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Signatures on the cheque is not denied, yet the complainant has failed to prove any friendly relationship with the accused -- No acknowledgement has been placed on record nor in the income tax returns Mark `A’ and Mark `B’, there is any reference of loan when it is an admitted fact that the wife of attorney (complainant) had been into the business of Hire Purchase and Investment for the last 20 years -- It is permissible for the accused to point out contradictions/deficiencies in the evidence led by the prosecution and that it is not necessary for the accused to lead evidence in defence to rebut the presumption -- No ground to grant leave to appeal. ANSS Raja Shekhar’s case (2019) SCC 185 & Kishan Rao’s case (2018) 8 SCC 165 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2020

Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 10.02.2020

Section 138, 141, 142 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.02.2020

Section 138, 142 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 -- Second Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Double jeopardy -- Trial court convicted the accused – Appellate Court acquitted the accused solely based upon Yogendra Pratap Singh’s case, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 -- Hon’ble Apex Court held in that case, where the complaint was filed before the expiry of the period 15 days stipulated in the notice, the Court cannot take the cognizance thereof, however, the second complaint on the same cause of action has been held to be maintainable and the delay in filing such complaint shall be deemed to have been condoned -- Held, it cannot be said that the filing of the second complaint and passing of the summoning order therein, amounts to double jeopardy to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.01.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Accused summoned u/s 138 NI Act -- Absence of complainant -- Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of -- On account of absence of complainant on one occasion dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution was not justified, since, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, non-suiting the parties on technical grounds -- Present petition challenging the impugned order is maintainable and no fault can be found with the same -- Petition accepted; impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored at its original number.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce case -- Compounding of offence without consent of complainant -- Cheque amount as well as charges deposited by convict/ accused -- Offence is permitted to be compounded.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.12.2019

Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- Dismissal of complaint – Appellant/complainant has averred that the amount of cheque is part of sale consideration which stands belied from the reading of registered sale deed -- Once on preponderance of probabilities the defence creates doubt, the onus shifts on the complainant to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the protective umbrella of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is no more available. Dismissal of complaint order, upheld. Rangappa’s case, (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.11.2019

Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- Dismissal of complaint – Appellant/complainant has averred that the amount of cheque is part of sale consideration which stands belied from the reading of registered sale deed -- Once on preponderance of probabilities the defence creates doubt, the onus shifts on the complainant to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the protective umbrella of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is no more available. Dismissal of complaint order, upheld. Rangappa’s case, (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.11.2019

Section 138, 145 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 -- Complaint in cheque bounce case – Evidence of accused by way of affidavit – Permissibility of -- Accused, who is facing trial in complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not competent to tender his evidence through affidavit.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2019

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender -- Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2019

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 219 -- Cheque bounce case – Four cheque bounced – One legal notice issued – Consolidation of trial -- There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure – Only relief that can be granted, Trial Magistrate directed to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

(SC) Decided on: 05.09.2019

Section 87, 138 – Blank Cheque -- Material alteration -- Filling in the blank shall not be always required to be treated as a material alteration -- Alteration in the common parlance is understood to mean, something already been written has been changed/altered subsequently -- Alteration is not synonymous to the word “filling up the unfilled column or space” -- Alteration is permissible, if it is made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the petitioner only when the Court is certain that the continuation of the proceedings would be of no use and the Court is in a position to record from finding that continuation of such proceedings would result in abuse of the process of the Court -- Once there is a doubt or there are certain questions which need adjudication on appreciation of evidence, the High Court should not exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.08.2019

Section 138, 143-A, 148 – Cheque bounce case -- Directions to deposit certain percentage of compensation/fine – Adjustment of amount recovered under 'the SARFAESI Act' – Courts are well within their power to order adjustment -- Amount recovered under the SARFAESI Act shall be deemed to have been adjusted towards 20% of the compensation as ordered by the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 138, 143-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 421 – Cheque bounce case – Interim compensation -- Non-deposit of – It is nowhere, specifically provided in the Act that if the payment as ordered has not been deposited, the bail granted shall be liable to be consequently cancelled – Recovery can be made of such defaulted amount as if it is a fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. -- During the trial of the case, the Court should not cancel the bail already granted on this ground alone.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce case -- Directions to deposit certain percentage of compensation/fine – Non-deposit of – Once the legislature or framers of the NI Act have not made any specific provision for automatic cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court or the appellate court on account of default of payment of interim compensation or certain percentage of compensation or fine, it would not be appropriate to hold it otherwise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(2), 389 – Appeal against conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Deposit of 25% of the amount of Compensation – Direction of -- Power of -- Amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act confers power upon the Appellate Court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the Appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the Appellant-accused u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence irrespective of the provisions of Section 357(2) of the Cr.P.C..

(SC) Decided on: 29.05.2019

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.05.2019 Pronounced on : 21.05.2019

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan of Rs. 2 lacs -- No documentation -- Complainant has not mentioned any date, month, year as to when the loan was advanced to the accused -- No receipt or security document was got executed while lending amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the accused -- Otherwise also, there are no particulars, that at which place, in whose presence the loan was advanced and what was the mode of giving the amount, whether by cheque or by cash nor there is anything that the amount was withdrawn from the bank or it was lying with the complainant at his home -- No document on record to show the loan transaction -- No income tax return has been produced to show the lending of the amount in question to the accused -- All these facts are fatal to the case of the complainant. Vijay’s case, 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 1028 (SC) relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2019

Section 138, 139 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 30 -- Cheque bounce case – Void agreement – Presumption u/s 139 of NI Act – Rebuttal of -- Statement of account is not pertaining to any loan raised by the accused but the same is regarding chit fund/lottery system run by the complainant -- Transaction comes under the agreement by way of wager, which is void as per Section 30 of the Contract Act -- Both the parties were involved in chit fund/lottery system -- Presumption u/s 139 of Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence – Accused raised probable defence – Acquittal order, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2019

Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Loan of Rs. 7 lacs -- No documentation -- No receipt or security document was got executed while lending such a huge amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the accused – No particulars, that at which place, in whose presence the loan was advanced and what was the mode of giving the amount, whether by cheque or by cash nor there is anything that the amount was withdrawn from the bank or it was lying with the complainant at his home -- No document on record to show the loan transaction -- No income tax return has been produced to show the lending of the amount in question to the accused -- All these facts are fatal to the case of the complainant. Vijay’s case 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 1028 (SC) relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.05.2019

Section 118(a), 139 -- Legally enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of – Law summarised in following manner:- (i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. (ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. (iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. (iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. (v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Section 118(a), 139 -- Signature not denied on cheque -- Legally enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of – Presumption of Complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability – Presumption u/s 139 is a rebuttable presumption.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Section 118(a), 139 -- Legal enforceable liability – Financial capacity – Onus of proof – Acquittal of accused -- During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Section 118(a), 139 -- Legal enforceable liability – Financial capacity – Onus of proof – Acquittal of accused -- During the period from 2009 to November, 2011, amount of Rs.18 lakhs was given by the complainant to different persons including the accused, which put a heavy burden to prove the financial capacity when it was questioned on behalf of the accused -- It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence -- Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 09.04.2019

Section 138, 143-A – Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Provision for deposit of 20% in complaint -- Substantive obligation -- Prospective in nature -- Section 143-A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby effect the substantive right of the accused -- Since the Amendment Act has not made the provision applicable retrospectively, specifically, to pending cases, hence, it cannot be applied retrospectively, to pending cases; which arose from the default of the accused which has taken place before coming into force of this provision.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.04.2019