{"id":320201,"date":"2024-04-17T15:00:20","date_gmt":"2024-04-17T09:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=320201"},"modified":"2024-04-17T15:18:30","modified_gmt":"2024-04-17T09:48:30","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In four petitions for special leave to appeal filed by a partnership firm (‘Rajco Steel Enterprises’) dealing in iron and steel products, against a Judgment of Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court dismissed Rajco Steel Enterprises appeal against acquittal of the accused\/ respondent 1 for offences under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881<\/a> (‘NI Act’), the division bench of Aniruddha Bose*<\/span> and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. has opined that there is no perversity in the finding of the High Court, and prior to that, in the finding of the First Appellate Court, that went against Rajco Steel, and these findings are not perverse or based on no evidence.<\/p>\n

The petitioner, through its partner, had lodged four complaint cases under the aforesaid provision, after four cheques, alleged to have been issued by the accused, were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner claims that these cheques were issued between 07-11-2008 and 24-11-2008, drawn on the Axis Bank Limited in Kolkata. The defence case, in essence, was that the dishonoured cheques were neither issued nor handed over to Rajco Steel, but these were illegally procured by the Rajco Steel from the custody of the investigating agency i.e., CBI and were subsequently presented for encashment intentionally. The main case of the accused thus, was that there was no debt as such because the cheques were never issued in the first place.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court held that the impugned cheques were not part of the cheque book seized by CBI and these were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Thus, the accused was convicted by the Trial Court for commission of offence under Section 138<\/a> of the NI Act<\/a>, as she had failed to rebut the presumption contained in Section 118<\/a> read with Section 139<\/a> of the NI Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The First Appellate Court set aside this finding and acquitted the accused. It found that the Rajco Steel had failed to produce any document showing any loan transaction. There was no proof of any loan transaction and the Rajco Steel had also failed to prove handing over the cheques to it by the accused. The First Appellate Court also took note of the fact that the signature of the accused and the figures showing the amount in the respective cheques were in different inks and held that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt contained in aforesaid Sections of the NI Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petitioner’s appeal before the High Court against the judgment of acquittal was also dismissed. The High Court found that no valid documentary evidence could be produced by Rajco steel and the prosecution, for substantiating the existence of any enforceable debt or other liability on the part of the accused.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the question involved in this proceeding is as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if it was so, then whether the accused was able to rebut the presumption in terms of Section 118<\/a> read with Section 139<\/a> of the 1881 Act<\/a>. However, after referring to Narendra Pratap Narain Singh<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (1991) 2 SCC 623<\/a>, wherein it was said that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> to interfere with concurrent findings of fact is not in question, when such findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Thus, the Bench said that the question, it has to address is as to whether the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are on no evidence or perverse.<\/p>\n

The Court said that both the Courts have examined the evidence threadbare and against Rajco Steel.<\/p>\n

Concerning the question as to whether the sum involved in the cheques was advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not, the Court said that Rajco Steel has failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance. Further, it said that both the appellate fora, on-going through the evidence did not find existence of any “enforceable debt or other liability”. This strikes at the root of the Rajco Steel’s case.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court opined that there is no perversity in the finding of the High Court, and prior to that, in the finding of the First Appellate Court, that went against Rajco Steel, and these findings are not perverse or based on no evidence.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2024 SCC OnLine SC 518<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Rajco Steel Enterprises<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
Kavita Saraff<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span>
Avnish Pandey, AOR<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Monisha Handa, Adv., Rajul Shrivastav, Adv., Anubhav Sharma, Adv., Astha Sharma, AOR,. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Anju Thomas, Adv., Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Mantika Haryani, Adv., Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv., Bhanu Mishra, Adv., Muskan Surana, Adv., Anvita Dwivedi, Adv.,Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Aniruddha
Aniruddha Bose, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Sanjay
Sanjay Kumar, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Both the appellate fora, on-going through the evidence did not find existence of any ‘enforceable debt or other liability’. This strikes at the root of the Rajco Steel’s case”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":320202,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[67640,67638,31346,31709,3461,17041,67639],"class_list":["post-320201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case","tag-cheque-dishonour-case","tag-debt","tag-financial-assistance","tag-liability","tag-negotiable-instruments-act","tag-supreme-court-acquittal"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if sum was advanced towards financial assistance | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-17T09:30:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-04-17T09:48:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"592\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if sum was advanced towards financial assistance | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-17T09:30:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-04-17T09:48:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp\",\"width\":888,\"height\":592,\"caption\":\"cheque dishonour case\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if sum was advanced towards financial assistance | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance","og_description":"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-04-17T09:30:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-04-17T09:48:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":888,"height":592,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/","name":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if sum was advanced towards financial assistance | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp","datePublished":"2024-04-17T09:30:20+00:00","dateModified":"2024-04-17T09:48:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court upheld acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case, as complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp","width":888,"height":592,"caption":"cheque dishonour case"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-16-year-old-cheque-dishonour-case-complainant-failed-show-sum-advanced-towards-financial-assistance\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court upholds acquittal in 16-year-old cheque dishonour case; Says complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/cheque-dishonour-case.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":375720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/16\/acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-complainant-challenge-appeal-not-revision-ker-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":0},"title":"Cheque dishonour complainant is a ‘victim’; Acquittal must be challenged by appeal, not revision: Kerala HC","author":"Sunaina","date":"February 16, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA 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,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Acquittal in cheque dishonour case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Acquittal-in-cheque-dishonour-case.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":129291,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/06\/only-drawer-of-cheque-can-be-made-an-acccused-in-proceedings-for-dishonour-of-cheque\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":1},"title":"Only drawer of cheque can be made an acccused in proceedings for dishonour of cheque","author":"Saba","date":"May 6, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Gujarat High Court: A Bench comprising of J.B. Pardiwala, J. has directed quashing of criminal proceedings against the applicant and co-accused husband, for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, invoking inherent powers of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/GujHC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/GujHC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/GujHC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/GujHC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/GujHC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":224055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/bom-hc-s-139-ni-act-imposes-evidentiary-burden-and-not-a-persuasive-burden-acquittal-upheld-where-complainant-failed-to-prove-capacity-to-give-loan\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the accused of charges under Section 138\u00a0(dishonour of cheque)\u00a0of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As per the complainant, she had given a loan of Rs 4.5 lakhs to the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223277,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/16\/ker-hc-acquittal-from-offence-under-s-138-ni-act-upheld-where-cheque-not-drawn-on-account-maintained-by-the-accused\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":3},"title":"Ker HC | Acquittal from offence under S. 138 NI Act upheld where cheque not drawn on account maintained by the accused","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. rejected this petition in which the petitioner prayed to file an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This petition was filed by the petitioner to seek relief\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":312627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/supreme-court-rejection-of-application-for-handwriting-expert-opinion-in-cheque-dishonour-case-section-138-ni-act-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":4},"title":"When can an application for Handwriting Expert\u2019s Opinion in Cheque Dishonour Case be rejected? Supreme Court explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Cheque Dishonour","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/29\/calcutta-high-court-upholds-acquittal-under-section-138-of-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":320201,"position":5},"title":"Calcutta High Court upholds acquittal under Section 138 of NI Act on failure to prove existence of legally enforceable debt","author":"Ritu","date":"November 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a \u201crebuttable presumption\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320201","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=320201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320201\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/320202"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=320201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=320201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=320201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}