Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., dismissed a matter revolving around the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Background
Respondent 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 against the revisionist stating that he had taken a friendly loan of Rs 4,80,000 from the respondent for a period of one month.
The revisionist had issued a cheque for the above-said amount, but the said cheque was returned with the remark “fund insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice, but the revisionist could not make the payment within a stipulated period, hence case under Section 138 NI Act was filed.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court expressed that, taking into consideration the various provisions of Cr.P.C. which have been discussed in various judgments time and again demonstrate that the Negotiable Instruments Act, provides sufficient opportunity to a person who issues the cheque.
Further, the Court observed that,
Once a cheque is issued by a person, it must be honored and if it is not honored, the person is given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount by issuance of a notice and if he still does not pay, he is bound to face the criminal trial and consequences.
Trite Law
Once the issuance of a cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises.
Bench stated that while imposing sentence on the accused after his conviction, it is to be kept in mind that sentence for offence under Section 138 NI Act should be of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation and no drawer of the cheque can be allowed to take dishonour of cheque issued by him light-heartedly.
In the present matter, the revisionist submitted that the cheque was lost and he had filed a complaint of the same as well, but the original complaint was not placed on record.
Bench noted his malafides when it was found that he neither informed the bank concerned about the cheque nor requested the bank to get the payment stopped against the said cheque.
Lastly, while stating that mere statement by revisionist would not be sufficient to raise suspicion with the prosecution’s case, High Court found no infirmity in the decision of the trial court and upheld the same.[Sanjay Gupta v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 822, decided on 24-3-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Revisionist: Mr. Sudhanshu Palo and Mr. Surendra Kr. Roy, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State. Ms. Seema Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
