Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act is a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) CrPC as the expression ‘victim’ includes not only the person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of any act or omission for which the accused person has been charged, but also includes his or her guardian or legal heir.”
“Mere bald cursory statement in a Complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the Company without anything more as to the role of the Director, is not sufficient.”
“A separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided the statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure to pay is complete.”
With the departure of year 2025 a recap of the most notable decisions of the Supreme Court of India is a must. 2025 has been a landmark year especially in respect to verdicts on judicial services, environmental causes such as Aravali Hills, activism for stray animals. The Court also laid to rest the questions of Governor and President’s powers vis-a-vis giving assent to Bills and flagged pendency of cheque bounce cases in courts.
“Under Section 139 of the NI Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 NI Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence led in trial.”
This article aims to explain the legal framework governing cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act, with particular focus on the significance, format, and essentials of a cheque bounce notice. It also highlights key judicial developments shaping the interpretation of these provisions.
“A meaningful reading of Sections 20, 118 and 139 of the NI Act makes it clear that a person who signs a cheque and delivers it to the payee remains liable unless he successfully rebuts the statutory presumptions.”
“If the original document is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible”.
“Procedure, it is said, is only a handmaiden and not a mistress of justice. However, the said adage has been followed only in the breach in this case. A simple issue of an amendment to a complaint has held up a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the last nearly two years.”
“An appeal against an order of conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in person or the counsel representing him is not present.”
The immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be obtained by a corporate debtor and not by a natural person such as the present accused, who was the Director of the corporate debtor.
For the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the CrPC, the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”.
“Clubbing of the FIRs will reduce the financial drain on the state exchequer as well as cut down the administrative burden, especially given that all the cases arise out of same or similar cause.”
The Court held that the petition was effectively a review in disguise, which is barred under Section 362 CrPC and cannot be entertained.
“Investigating Agency seeks proclamation order from the court concerned so as to exert the pressure upon the person concerned and the court concerned without taking care of specific procedure issues proclamation under Sections 82/83 CrPC in a cursory and mechanical manner.”
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant Court was right in rejecting the application of the accused seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in Cheque Dishonour case.
“The accused has miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant”
The Supreme Court observed that such settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence and hence, the Court cannot override such compounding and impose its will.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed