Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Harpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.15662 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The counsel would submit that the concerned bank account was frozen by the police on 10.03.2015 and therefore the petitioner should not face conviction for the offence, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
4. However, it is seen from the impugned judgment itself that although ten cheques totaling a sum of Rupees Eighty Lakhs was issued by the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, the concerned bank account had maximum deposit of Rs. 18,52,033/-. This would indicate that the benefit of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner to point out his incapacity in operating the bank account, will not aid the petitioner.
5. The Senior Counsel would then refer to the funds available with the petitioner in different bank accounts, as shown from Annexure P-12, to say that the petitioner had sufficient balance in those bank accounts.
6. In a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot rely upon other bank accounts for the dishonoured cheque which relates to specific bank account of the accused. Accordingly, the argument advanced by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel of having adequate funds by reference to the other bank accounts of the company, cannot be of any assistance to the accused. The Special Leave Petition is therefore found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
A cheque's dishonour under Section 138 cannot be excused by reliance on funds in other bank accounts; the specific account must have sufficient balance.
Premature quashing of proceedings and the existence of a bank account as indicated by the 'Account Frozen' endorsement on the cheque were crucial in the Court's decision.
Cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 not quashable under inherent powers when reason for return (insufficient funds vs. account freeze) is disputed and requires evidentiary determination at t....
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable even if the cheque is dishonoured due to the account being frozen.
Dishonor of a cheque due to account blockage does not fulfill the criteria for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the account was not maintained by the drawer.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – If Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against accused, in absence of any review power or inherent power with subord....
The foundational facts required to draw statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be proved with evidence, and the presumption is rebuttable.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies despite account seizure; the burden to disprove liability lies with the accused.
Presumption against the drawer of the cheque, dishonour of cheques due to closure of the account, and the petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
