Cheque bounce case – 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

Cheque bounce case – 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

Cheque bounce case – 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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

Cheque bounce case -- 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