Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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