Trial Court's Ignorance of Key Exhibits Documentary Evidence Vitiated Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Calcutta High Court

"Failure to consider Exhibits 3 and 6 strikes at the very foundation of proper judicial appreciation of evidence" –  In a significant ruling impacting cheque dishonour litigation, the Calcutta High Court set aside an acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after finding that the Trial Court had ignored crucial documentary evidence relating to limitation. Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the Trial Court's failure to consider the ‘Register of Cheques Returned’ (Exhibit-6) and Cheque Return Memo (Exhibit-3) was a material error of law and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

The High Court held: "Selective appreciation of evidence, by relying upon one part of the record while completely ignoring another material document, vitiates the judicial decision-making process and undermines the sanctity of the judgment."

"Limitation must be computed from date of knowledge, not mere date of dishonour, when evidence supports the same" – High Court reiterates crucial distinction

The controversy centered around whether the statutory demand notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act was issued within the mandated 15 days. The complainant (MMTC Ltd.) had received information regarding dishonour of two account payee cheques totaling over ₹22 lakhs only on 31.10.1997, although the dishonour itself occurred on 20.10.1997. The statutory notice dated 12.11.1997, served on 15.11.1997, was thus argued to be within limitation when reckoned from the date of knowledge.

Despite this, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, had acquitted the accused Sk. Abdul Sabur under Section 255(1) CrPC, holding that the notice was not issued within time, without recording any finding on the date of knowledge or discussing the key documents.

Justice Biswas took strong exception to this omission, noting that "the Trial Court did not appreciate all the exhibited documents brought on record and, in particular, failed to advert to Exhibits 3 and 6, despite the fact that the same were duly exhibited and formed an integral part of the prosecution evidence."

The Court observed that Exhibit-6 (Cheque Return Register), in conjunction with Exhibit-3 (Cheque Return Memo), clearly recorded 31.10.1997 as the date of intimation to the complainant, and in absence of any challenge during cross-examination, that fact stood unrebutted.

The Court further stressed that delay and limitation are questions of fact unless controverted. Since the defence did not challenge the date of knowledge in cross-examination, the Trial Court's refusal to act upon it amounted to non-application of mind.

While the respondent relied upon precedents including Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, (1998) SCC (Cri) 1471, and Sarbnarayan Jha v. M/s. Khan Pal Chowdhury & Co. (P) Ltd., the High Court clarified that these authorities were inapplicable in the present case due to the Trial Court’s failure to even consider whether statutory compliance had actually been made, based on the evidence adduced.

The High Court conclusively held:

"The impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities inasmuch as it ignores material documentary evidence and oral testimonies… Accordingly, the impugned judgment, being founded on incomplete and selective consideration of the exhibited documents, cannot be allowed to stand and is not sustainable in the eyes of law."

Consequently, the acquittal dated 30.03.2016 was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with specific direction to the Trial Court to "adjudicate the matter afresh, upon due and comprehensive consideration of the entire documentary exhibits as well as the oral evidences already on record."

The Court also emphasized that the new judgment must be a reasoned and speaking order, passed independently without being influenced by any observations in the appellate judgment, which were confined solely to the question of legality of the acquittal order.

This decision reinforces the critical procedural principle that all material evidence must be considered while adjudicating criminal liability, especially in cheque dishonour cases where limitation is often determinative of the entire complaint’s validity. The ruling is likely to have ripple effects across NI Act prosecutions, especially where the date of receipt of dishonour information becomes contentious.

Date of Decision: 14 January 2026