CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Financial Capacity of the Complainant and Cheque's Authenticity Central to Acquittal: Punjab and Haryana HC Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, upheld the acquittal of the respondent in the much-discussed cheque dishonour case, CRM-A-3767-MA-2018. The decision, delivered on March 21, 2024, focused on critical issues regarding the financial capacity of the appellant and the authenticity of the cheque involved.

The appeal was lodged against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in conjunction with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's primary contention was the alleged misuse of a cheque and the respondent's insufficient funds.

The case stemmed from an incident in February 2016, where the respondent was accused of borrowing Rs. 2,00,000 from the appellant and issuing a cheque that was later dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant claimed the amount was not repaid despite legal notice, leading to the initial complaint.

The Court closely scrutinized the appellant’s claimed financial capacity to lend the amount. The appellant's income tax returns indicated annual incomes significantly lower than the amount lent, casting doubt on his ability to advance such a loan. This aspect critically weakened the credibility of the appellant's claim.

Discrepancies in the cheque, notably in handwriting, pointed towards potential manipulation by the appellant. This raised questions about the appellant’s intentions and the cheque's legitimacy.

The High Court reinforced the principles governing appellate intervention in acquittal cases. The Court underscored the need for respecting the trial court’s judgment, especially when it aligns with one of two plausible interpretations, the one favoring the accused's innocence.

The Court found the trial court's findings neither perverse nor illegal, warranting no interference at the appellate level. Hence, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal upheld.

In light of the above assessments, the Court denied the appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the respondent. The Court underscored the principle of the presumption of innocence that gets further reinforced post an acquittal.

Date of Decision: 21.03.2024.

RAVI KUMAR VERSUS ANU

Latest Legal News