High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Failure to Prove Return of Defective Goods and Failure to Stop Payment Establish Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Rajesh Kumar Jain under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 5,26,785/-. The petitioner was sentenced to four months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 8,50,000/-, with the fine amount directed to be paid to the respondent, J.C. Trading.

The case involved a criminal revision petition challenging the judgment of the Special Judge (NDPS), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The petitioner issued a cheque dated September 9, 2014, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The cheque was issued for payment of goods received from the respondent. Despite receiving a legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Admission of Cheque Signature: The petitioner admitted to signing the cheque but claimed it was filled out by clerical staff and issued for defective goods that were returned.

Legal Notice and Presumption of Service: The trial court presumed the service of the legal notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as it was dispatched to the petitioner’s address and returned undelivered.

Failure to Prove Return of Goods: The petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of returning the defective goods. No evidence, such as the examination of the transporter, was provided to support this defence.

Rebuttable Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act: The court reiterated that once the cheque’s execution is admitted, a presumption arises that it was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The petitioner did not effectively rebut this presumption.

Distinction from Advance Payment Cases: The court distinguished this case from those where cheques are issued as advance payments for undelivered goods, noting that in the present case, the goods were received and no prior objection to their quality was raised.

Decision: The High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Rajesh Kumar Jain vs. J.C. Trading

Similar News