Back
Can Completed Trial Be Remanded ? Rules in NI Act Case
The
has firmly held that a completed trial under
cannot be remanded to the
merely on the ground of a
in the manner of recording
, especially when the accused has not pleaded or proved any
. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a
order that had remanded the matter for a fresh trial from the stage of
, observing that the High Court had erroneously accepted a contention raised
"by reason of the ingenuity of the lawyer"
without any foundation of
.
The Dispute and the Remand
The case arose from a complaint filed by Sanu Varghese (the appellant) against Shoukkathali (the respondent) under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of a cheque for ₹30 lakhs. The accused claimed that he had given a signed blank cheque as security for a loan of ₹10 lakhs, and that the complainant was not even present in the city when the alleged loan of ₹20 lakhs was handed over and the cheque was issued. However, the accused produced no substantive evidence—such as Call Data Records of the complainant—to substantiate his claim of the complainant’s absence.
The trial proceeded, and the accused was examined as DW-1. After the trial was completed, the accused never raised any before the or the . Nevertheless, in revision, the relied on the ’s decision in M/s Mandvi Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nimesh B. Thakore (2010) 3 SCC 83 and remanded the matter for a fresh trial from the stage of , holding that the procedure under had not been properly followed.
The ’s Analysis
The examined the scope of Mandvi Cooperative Bank , which interpreted . That decision held that while the complainant’s evidence can be given on affidavit under sub-section (1), the accused cannot be permitted to give evidence on affidavit under sub-section (2) in the same manner. However, the Court stressed that this must be applied with reference to the caused to the accused in a completed trial.
The bench noted that in the present case, the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque, and the
under the NI Act had not been
. The accused had ample opportunity to lead evidence, including by seeking to examine the complainant in person, but did not do so. No
was alleged at any stage before the
or the
. The High Court’s order, the
observed, was based on a contention that was
"merely by reason of the ingenuity of the lawyer."
Key Observations
The Court made pointed observations on the absence of :
"The accused never alleged abefore theor before the. The signature was admitted and the presumption applies squarely which has not been...Before the High Court, the accused has merely by reason of the ingenuity of the lawyer, taken a contention which was erroneously accepted by the learned Single Judge, according to us. Thelooms large and is stark in the above case by its absence."
The bench further clarified that the principle from
Mandvi Cooperative Bank
must be applied in a criminal case
"specifically with reference to the
caused to the accused in a completed trial."
Since no
was demonstrated, there was no basis for remanding a completed trial merely for a
.
The Final Decision
The allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the , and restored Criminal Revision Petition No. 715 of 2023 to the High Court’s file for consideration on its merits. The Court also directed that if the had subsequently examined the accused in person, that evidence shall be eschewed, and only the evidence led at the initial trial shall be considered.
The ruling reaffirms that procedural technicalities cannot be used to reopen a unless the accused can show . It underscores the importance of the under the NI Act and the heavy burden on the accused to rebut it with concrete evidence.
