TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

"High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case: Burden of Proof on Complainant"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, the acquittal of the accused in a cheque bounce case has been upheld. The judgment, delivered on July 21, 2022, highlights the significance of the burden of proof lying with the complainant in such cases.

The case revolved around allegations that the accused, Geeta Devi, had borrowed a substantial sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and issued a cheque in favor of the complainant, Pamod Kumar. However, the cheque was returned with the notation 'Account Closed.' Subsequently, Pamod Kumar initiated legal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The court's observation in the judgment emphasized the need for clear and convincing evidence when establishing a claim in cheque bounce cases. The judgment noted, "It would not seem prudent for any person to advance such a huge amount without execution of proper documents in support thereof."

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque is rebuttable. In this case, the accused denied both the existence of the liability and having issued the cheque. The burden of proof, therefore, rested squarely on the complainant.

The judgment referenced a significant legal precedent, the case of Triyambak S. Hegde Vs. Sripad (2022) 1 SCC 742, to support its reasoning.

Represented by Mr. Subhash Godara, Advocate, the appellant had argued that the issuance of the cheque and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt should be sufficient to establish the offense. However, the court found that there was no conclusive evidence to support the complainant's claims.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal underscores the importance of providing substantial and irrefutable evidence when pursuing cases of cheque bounce, placing the onus firmly on the complainant to establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2022

PAMOD @ PARMOD KUMAR VS GEETA DEVI                      

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Parmod_Parmod_Kumar_vs_Geeta_Devi_on_21_July_202.pdf"]

Latest Legal News