Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

"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"]

Similar News