“We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and […]Read more "Rebuttable Presumption II"
The legal heirs of someone deceased, convicted under Section 138, are neither liable to pay the fine or undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor. Trial Court had acquitted the (now) deceased on basis of an opinion of a handwriting expert. High Court considered, the opinion was inconclusive. […]Read more "Cheque Bounce Acquittal"
“With effect from 01.09.2018, Section 143A was inserted in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by Amendment Act No. 20/2018. We are concerned in the present case only with the issue regarding applicability of said Section 143A to offences under Section 138, committed before the insertion of said Section 143A. Section 143A not only creates a […]Read more "Section 143A, The NI Act"
Considering, Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment, Amended Section 148 of The N.I. Act is applicable w.r.t. Appeals against Orders of Conviction and Sentence for the Offence under Section 138, even where Criminal Complaints for the Offence are filed prior to Amendment Act No. 20/2018 [01.09.2018]. “If such a purposive interpretation is not adopted, […]Read more "Section 148, The NI Act"
The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption; Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus and the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses on the accused and the accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof; the standard of proof for […]Read more "Rebuttable Presumption I"
Appellant-Director [Himanshu] cannot not be prosecuted for a Company-Issued, Director-Signed Cheque Bounce without Company [M/s. Lakshmi Cement and Industries Ltd.] being named/arraigned as an Accused. Three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada, (2012) 5 SCC 661 governs the area of dispute. Three-Judge Bench has since been followed by a Two-Judge Bench in Charanjit Pal Jindal vs. L.N. […]Read more "Notice to Directors II"
“The correctness of the decision in Sadanandan’s case was doubted. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of The Act that forbids the holder of the cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based […]Read more "Successive Presentations of Cheque"