A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 258 – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial – Discharge of accused – Compounding of offence -- Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect –Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused -- Court is entitled to close the proceedings in exercise of its powers u/s 143 of the Act read with Section 258 Cr.P.C.

(Para 11, 18 (i)-(iii), 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial -- Online hearing of case – Online appearance of accused – Exemption of accused from personal appearance -- Service of summons can be by post/ e-mail/ courier -- Summons ought to indicate that the accused could make specified payment by deposit in a particular account before the specified date and inform the court and the complainant by e-mail -- If the accused complies with such summons and informs the Court and the complainant by e-mail, the Court can ascertain the objection, if any, of the complainant and close the proceedings unless it becomes necessary to proceed with the case -- Some cases of Section 138 cases can be decided online -- If complaint with affidavits and documents can be filed online, process issued online and accused pays the specified amount online, it may obviate the need for personal appearance of the complainant or the accused -- Only if the accused contests, need for appearance of parties may arise which may be through counsel and wherever viable, video conferencing can be used -- Personal appearances can be dispensed with.

(Para 16, 17, 20)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 431 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 64 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial -- Discretion of the Magistrate to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed -- Court has jurisdiction u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C -- With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases.

(Para 12, 18(iv))

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 264, 357(3) – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial – Procedure for summoning -- Evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit -- Bank’s slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence -- Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings – Normal rule for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act is to follow the summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary.

(Para 18(iv), (v), 19)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Chapter XXIA -- Cheque bounce complaint – Plea bargaining -- Speedy trial -- It will be open to the Court to consider the provisions of plea bargaining -- Trial can be on day to day basis and endeavour must be to conclude it within six months.

(Para 20)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Legal enforceable liability – 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.

(Para 5)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Statutory notice -- Requirement of -- Statutory notice u/s 138 of the N.I.Act has been held to be mandatory in the absence of which the complaint under Section 138 must fail.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction in – 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.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 3)

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 -- 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.

(Para 12,13, 17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 138,139 -- Friendly loan of Rs. 20 lacs – 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.

(Para 10-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 – Presumption of – Rebuttal of -- Presumption u/s 139 can be rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- 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.

(Para 10, 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – 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.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Dismiss in default – Restoration of -- 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.

(Para 9-11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Pronote and Receipt – Allegation of forged and fabrication – Onus of proof -- Execution of the pronote and receipt through his own testimony as also through the depositions of the marginal witness duly proved -- To refute the above, the only evidence led by the appellant is his own bald statement – Once the respondent had discharged his onus, it was then up to the appellant to prove that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 18 – Pronote without consideration – Proof of – Onus of proof -- Respondent had categorically stated that before disbursing of the loan in question he had sold land for Rs.19,00,000/- and out of those proceeds Rs.8,00,000/- were loaned to the appellant -- Upon such statement by him, the onus then shifted upon the appellant to rebut the presumption that the pronote and receipt were not for valid consideration.

(Para 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Closing of evidence of complainant – 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.

 (Para 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357, 389, 401 -- 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.

(Para 1-4)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – 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.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- 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.

(Para 13, 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – 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.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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.

(Para 7-9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- 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.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 34 – Books of accounts -- Bills and entries of accounts maintained in ordinary course of business can be proved by deposition on oath of the plaintiff -- Sales man and the other witnesses have also been produced to support the transaction and to prove the bills and accounts entries -- Company has been making payment from time to time and have never denied the supply of the material or the existence of the bills -- This tantamounts to acknowledgment.

(Para 7)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100, Order 41 –Liability of Company -- Appeal – Right of -- Company or the Managing Director of the company has never come forward to dispute their liability or to dispute the transactions of supply of the material by the plaintiff to the company -- They have not even challenged the liability fastened upon them by the trial court – Appellant, who do not even claim to be authorised representative of the company cannot question the liability against the company by filing the present appeal -- She can at the best question her liability in her personal capacity -- Appellant was a Director of the company and also a share holder, therefore, whatever liability the company law imposes upon her she cannot escape that by filing a appeal even her personal capacity -- She would always remain liable qua the liability of the company but subject to the extent of her liability according to the prevalent company law.

 (Para 8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320 – 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.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 141, 143, 147 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 41 – 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.

(Para 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 482 -- 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.

(Para 12-16)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Jurisdiction of the Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Writ jurisdiction -- When a thing is required to be done in a particular fashion, then the same should be done in that very fashion, however, exception can be carved out in view of inherent jurisdiction of the Court so as to bring about real intention of the special statute on compensatory mechanism – Held, a pragmatic approach should be adopted so as to curtail further litigations between the parties on this technical aspect.

(Para 13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Substantive sentence – Petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial as the complaint pertains to the year 2014 and has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 27 days as on 24.04.2017, out of substantive sentence of 02 years -- No previous conviction has either been alleged or proved against the accused -- Entire payment has been made and the complainant at this stage supports the case of the petitioner -- Sentence awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Cheque amounting to Rs.6 lacs – Substantive sentence reduced from the period of R.I. for 1 ½ years to R.I. for one year.

(Para 2,6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 482 – 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.

(Para 2,8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption of legal enforceable liability – Rebuttal of -- Complainant has not produced any document on record to show the loan transaction -- Neither income tax return nor any account books have been produced to show the transaction -- Agreement has not been proved on record as per law, but the oral statements support and corroborate the defence version -- Cheque is signed in Punjabi and filled by some other person of complainant side -- By raising probable defence, which is supported and corroborated by the cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses and by the defence witnesses, the presumption has been duly rebutted by the accused.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Seven cases u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Compounding of – 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.

(Para 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Cheque bounce case – Director of Company -- Vicarious liability – Acquittal in -- 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.

(Para 9-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – 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.

(Para 7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- 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.

(Para 5, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- 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.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – 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.

(Para 6-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act – 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.

(Para 6-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 421(1), 431 – 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.

(Para 4, 29)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Cheque amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- -- 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/-.

(Para 1,9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – 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.

(Para 26)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- 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.

(Para 27)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Conviction in -- 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.

(Para 32-35)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427, 482 – 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.

(Para 37)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438, 482 -- 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.

(Para 3,4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Alteration in cheque -- 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.

(Para 10-12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Rebuttal of presumption -- Accused has to raise probable defence, which is to be supported and corroborated by evidence to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -- Nothing on the record to show that three blank signed cheques have been given to the complainant by the accused for purchase of three wheeler when the complainant is not a financier nor there is any circumstance that complainant is a close relative or his another close friend was dealing with selling of three-wheeler – Held, defence raised by the accused is not supported and corroborated by any other evidence.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- 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.

(Para 12, 13)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 – Cheque bounce case -- 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.

(Para 14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- 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.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – 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.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Pan Card of complainant – Requirement of -- Held, defence has right to plead financial incapacity of the complainant but that cannot be an over reach to the extent of getting personal particulars of a person by calling upon him to produce his Pan Card.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- 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.

(Para 13-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal in – Leave to appeal -- 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.

(Para 9-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 9-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Complaint in cheque bounce case – Territorial jurisdiction -- If the cheque is presented in any branch of a bank in which the payee holds an account, jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed, would be at the place where the cheque has been presented.

(Para 14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 9-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 9-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 5,6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – 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.

 (Para 9-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – 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.

(Para 8,9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 7-12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 27 -- 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

(Para 13-15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Second notice – Meaning of -- First notice was effective and notice was deemed to have been served on the first respondent -- Second notice could be construed as a reminder of respondent’s obligation to discharge his liability -- As the complaint, was filed within the stipulated time contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, therefore Section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act is attracted.

(Para 16)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – 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.

(Para 5-7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – 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.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Cheque amounting to Rs. 30,000/- -- Conviction of accused -- 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.

(Para 4-12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Dismissed in default -- 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.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- 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.

(Para 9-13)