A Chandigarh Court
reminded that just signing a cheque doesn’t automatically mean someone is
guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it bounces.
This interesting case involves a man named Bal Krishan, who was accused of issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant, Rajesh Chauhan, said Bal Krishan was supposed to deliver a property to him. When that didn’t happen, Bal allegedly gave him a cheque to return the money. But when Rajesh presented the cheque at the bank, it bounced. Naturally, Rajesh filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with bounced cheques.
Now, Rajesh’s argument
was straightforward. He said, that since Bal had signed the cheque, the law
assumes it was issued to pay back a valid debt. But Bal’s lawyer told a
completely different story. According to him, there was no property deal, no
money owed, and no agreement of any kind. He said the cheque in question was a
blank cheque Bal had given as a security, which Rajesh had misused.
The court looked closely
at the details. It pointed out that Rajesh couldn’t prove that there was any debt
or property deal between them. There was no agreement, no evidence, and not
even a mention of specific details in the legal notice Rajesh sent to Bal. And
while Bal admitted the cheque was his, the court made it clear that just
signing a cheque doesn’t automatically mean someone has committed an offence.
For someone to be guilty
under the law, it has to be proven beyond doubt that the cheque was issued to
settle a legitimate debt or liability. In this case, Rajesh failed to do that.
So, the court dismissed the complaint and acquitted Bal.
While the law does
protect people when cheques bounce, it also ensures that these rules aren’t
misused. If you’re dealing with cheques, it’s always a good idea to keep proper
records and ensure everything is clear and transparent. That way, you’re not left
trying to explain things later.
At the end of the day,
this case shows how important it is to back up claims with solid proof,
especially when the law is involved.
[The citation for the above case was unpublished at the time of writing.]
Comments
Post a Comment