Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

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.

Latest Legal News