Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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