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    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

Sect. 138 N.I. Act - Mere Non-Identification Insufficient for Acquittal - High Court Remands Cheque Dishonour Case for Fresh Adjudication

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the judgment of a lower court in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing the necessity of a thorough examination and fair trial. The case, involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886, saw the respondent-accused acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the complainant failed to identify the accused in court. This judgment was challenged in the High Court.

The High Court, presided over by Honourable Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker, observed, "Mere non-identifying to the respondent-accused would lead to the conclusion that respondent-accused had rebutted the presumption which is in favour of the complainant." This critical observation underscored the flawed rationale in the trial court's decision.

Further delving into the matter, the High Court highlighted the importance of identification in cheque dishonour cases. The Court noted that the prosecution in Section 138 of the N.I. Act differs significantly from other criminal prosecutions, as it does not necessarily signify criminal intent. The Court remarked, "The proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, though criminal in nature, do not really signify the criminal intent and flow from the act, the basic object and the purpose of N.I. Act is to harness the violators of the transactions arising from the Mercantile Law."

The High Court criticized the trial court for its hasty decision-making and limited cross-examination, stating, "Learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure in fair and judicious manner and ought not to intend to serve a short cut to dismissal of case by snap judgment."

In its decision, the High Court has remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant, ensuring that both parties are given a fair opportunity to present their evidence. This ruling not only sets a precedent for handling cheque dishonour cases but also reinforces the principle of a fair trial in the judicial process.

Date of Judgment: 22 January 2024

Patel Malpeshkumar Kantilal VS State Of Gujarat

 

Similar News