The High Court patently erred in holding that the burden was on the appellant-complainant to prove that he had advanced the loan and the blank signed cheque was given to him in repayment of the same. The finding of the High Court that the case of the appellant-complainant became highly doubtful or not beyond reasonable doubt is patently erroneous for the reasons discussed above.
The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. However, the respondent-accused is sentenced only to fine, which is enhanced to Rs.16 lakhs and shall be paid as compensation to the appellant complainant. The fine shall be deposited in the Trial Court within eight weeks from the date, failing which the sentence of imprisonment of one year as imposed by the Trial Court shall revive. There shall be no order as to costs. ...Bir Singh =VS= Mukesh Kumar, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 94] ....View Full Judgment

The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.
During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court on 28 November 2008 recorded the statement of the appellant that he was willing to deposit the entire cheque.
In our view, having regard to the intent of the order which was passed by this Court on 28 November 2008, it would be appropriate and proper if the amount deposited in this Court, together with accrued interest, is paid over to the respondentcomplainant. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ...Himanshu =VS= B. Shivamurthy, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 90] ....View Full Judgment

Dishonoured due to insufficient fund–
We also find it difficult to accept that if the petitioner had in fact paid the money owed to the complainant in the year 2011, as alleged by him, that he did not take any steps to stop payment of the cheque issued by him earlier, especially when he himself states that the complainant told him that the cheque was lost, keeping in mind that anyone could attempt to encash that cheque. From 24.7.2011, when the petitioner apparently paid Tk.10 lac by Pay Order, till 18.09.2012 when the complaint was lodged, the petitioner did nothing to retrieve the cheque or to stop payment of the cheque. He admitted in his cross examination that he did not file any G.D. in respect of the non-return of the cheque. Moreover, we find from the deposition of the petitioner (D.W.1) that he admitted in cross examination of other transactions between himself and the complainant with regard to sale of land by the complainant and his wife and the payment of money in 2011. .....M.A. Azam Chowdhury =VS= A.B.M. Asaduzzamn & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 591] ....View Full Judgment

There is no legal bar of filing a single case against the drawer of the cheques if the notice is served within the period of limitation intimating the fact of dishonour of the cheques with a request to pay the amount involved in those cheques within a period of thirty days. .....Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 251] ....View Full Judgment

Cheque dishonour–
The oral and the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant are sufficient to prove that it was a legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. With the evidence adduced by the complainant, the courts below ought to have raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The evidence adduced by the respondent-accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Act. The defence of the respondent that though he made payment for the commodities/rice bags, the blank cheques were not returned by the appellant-complainant is quite unbelievable and unacceptable. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The impugned judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.53 and 54 of 2006 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The respondent-accused is convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and a fine of Rs.2,97,150/- (Rs.53,171/- + Rs.1,93,979/- + compensation of Rs.50,000/-) is imposed on the respondent in default of which, the respondent shall undergo imprisonment for six months. The fine amount of Rs.2,97,150/- is to be deposited before the trial court within twelve weeks from today, failing which the respondent shall be taken into custody to serve the default sentence. On deposit of fine amount, the amount of Rs.2,97,150/- shall be paid to the appellant-complainant. …M/S Shree Daneshwari Traders =VS= Sanjay Jain, (Criminal), 2019 (2) [7 LM (SC) 268]

Cheque Dishonour–
The criminal complaints against the appellants under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were lodged/filed before the amendment Act No. 20/2018 by which Section 148 of the N.I. Act came to be amended and therefore amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act shall not be made applicable– The appellants submitted application/s under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence pending appeals challenging the conviction and sentence, amended Section 148 of the N.I. Act came into force and was brought on statute w.e.f. 1.9.2018. Therefore, considering the object and purpose of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act and while suspending the sentence in exercise of powers under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., when the first appellate court directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation as imposed by the learned trial Court, the same can be said to be absolutely in consonance with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of amendment in Section 148 of the N.I. Act.
Facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the appellants were bonafidely litigating before this Court challenging the order passed by the first appellate court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the amount to be deposited is a huge amount, we grant further four weeks’ time from today to the appellants to deposit the amount as directed by the first appellate court, confirmed by the High Court and further confirmed by this Court.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision application/s, confirming the order passed by the first appellate court directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the amount of fine/compensation pending appeals. The instant appeals are accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations and appellants are now directed to deposit the amount directed by the first appellate court within extended period of four weeks from today. …Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal =VS= Virender Gandhi, (Criminal), 2019 (2) [7 LM (SC) 284] ....View Full Judgment

Cheque dishonour–
The oral and the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant are sufficient to prove that it was a legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. With the evidence adduced by the complainant, the courts below ought to have raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The evidence adduced by the respondent-accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Act. The defence of the respondent that though he made payment for the commodities/rice bags, the blank cheques were not returned by the appellant-complainant is quite unbelievable and unacceptable. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The impugned judgment of the High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.53 and 54 of 2006 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The respondent-accused is convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and a fine of Rs.2,97,150/- (Rs.53,171/- + Rs.1,93,979/- + compensation of Rs.50,000/-) is imposed on the respondent in default of which, the respondent shall undergo imprisonment for six months. The fine amount of Rs.2,97,150/- is to be deposited before the trial court within twelve weeks from today, failing which the respondent shall be taken into custody to serve the default sentence. On deposit of fine amount, the amount of Rs.2,97,150/- shall be paid to the appellant-complainant. …M/S Shree Daneshwari Traders =VS= Sanjay Jain, (Criminal), 2019 (2) [7 LM (SC) 268] ....View Full Judgment