-
by sayum
31 July 2026 3:40 PM
In a significant judgment pronounced on January 5, 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed a leave petition under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging a previous judgment by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a cheque bounce case filed under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The petitioners sought to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, arguing that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the law. However, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate’s decision.
In the judgment, Justice Banerjee observed, “The primary issue for consideration before this Court is whether the account on which the three impugned cheques were drawn can be said to be maintained by the drawer when the said account blocked/frozen/attached on the orders of an authority.” This observation was critical in determining the outcome of the case.
The court relied on precedents like the judgment in Ceasefire Industries Ltd. Vs. State & Ors., emphasizing that an account blocked, frozen, or attached due to reasons beyond the control of the drawer does not constitute a voluntary act and hence, does not fulfill the ingredients of the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Justice Banerjee further clarified, “This is more so because the blocking/freezing/attaching of the said bank account cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the drawer.” This comment underlines the court’s rationale in concluding that the respondent could not be faulted for the cheque bounce due to the involuntary blocking of the account.
The Court also dismissed the applicability of the judgments cited by the petitioner, highlighting the different facts and circumstances of those cases. In light of these observations and legal precedents, the Delhi High Court found no merit in the leave petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Date of Decision: January 05, 2024
MR. SACHIN JAIN & ORS. VS MR. RAJESH JAIN
