Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Absence of Proven Notice Renders Cheque Bounce Case Non-maintainable: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused in Section 138 N.I. Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted an individual in a cheque bounce case, underscoring the indispensable requirement of proving notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment, delivered by The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), emphasizes the procedural necessity of establishing the service of notice to the drawer of the bounced cheque.

The case, titled Sri Sarit Kumar Bose @ Sarit Kumar Basu Vs Smt. Rita Mallick & Anr. (CRR 1403 of 2019 with CRAN 1 of 2019), revolved around the conviction of the petitioner for a cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The original and appellate courts had convicted the petitioner without proper evidence of the mandatory notice being served, a key procedural element in such cases.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed, "The notice under Section 138 is foundational for a dishonor of cheque case," indicating that without proven notice, the case is deemed non-maintainable. This statement forms the crux of the judgment delivered on January 17, 2024.

Highlighting the inadequacy of the lower courts' reliance on the accused's admission under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court noted that such an admission alone is insufficient for conviction, especially when there is no corroborative evidence of notice service as per Section 138 N.I. Act.

The High Court's decision to set aside the judgments of the Additional District & Sessions Judge and the Trial Court for not being in accordance with the law and acquitting the petitioner, has been received as a significant precedent in the realm of negotiable instruments law. The judgment is expected to influence future cases involving cheque dishonor, highlighting the importance of procedural correctness and the rights of the accused.

Calcutta High Court's ruling brings to the forefront the essential legal tenets that govern cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly the non-negotiable requirement of proving notice in cheque bounce cases.

Date of Decision: 17.01.2024

Sri Sarit Kumar Bose @ Sarit Kumar Basu Vs Smt. Rita Mallick & Anr.

Similar News