Cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in violation of the Income-Tax Act cannot constitute a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as established by the court's ruling.

ORDER

When the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) prohibit a person from taking or accepting from another person any loan or deposit or any specified sum above an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account, or accepting payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or such other electronic mode as may be prescribed; can a criminal court justify cash transaction above an amount of Rs.20,000/- treating it as a “legally enforceable debt” is the important question to be decided in this case. The Union Government is aiming for “Digital India”, and the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India is leading the battle for complete digital transactions by every citizen of this country. Nowadays, we can see digital transactions even in small tea shops, paan shops, etc. In Kerala, even coolie workers accept their wages through digital transactions of Unified Payments Interface(UPI) like Google Pay, PhonePe, Paytm etc. I am of the considered opinion that, when the government of India aims a goal of complete digital transactions by every citizen of this country instead of cash transactions, a court of law cannot turn its face and legalise cash transactions.

2. I will first consider the facts of this case. The revision petitioner was an accused in S.T. No.387/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. It was a prosecution initiated by the 1^st respondent against the revision petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”). (Hereinafter, the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent are mentioned as the accused and the complainant, respectively.)

3. According to the complainant, the accused owed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs only) to the complainant and for discharge of the said legally enforceable debt, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/- drawn on his account maintained at the South Indian Bank Limited, Pathanamthitta Branch to the complainant. The accused made the complainant believe that he would keep sufficient funds in his account to honour the said cheque. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his account maintained at the Federal Bank, Pathanamthitta branch. The said cheque was dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”. The said cheque was returned to the complainant on 04.01.2013. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 09.01.2013, intimating the fact of dishonour of cheque and demanding Rs. 9,00,000/-, which is the amount covered under the cheque. The accused received the notice on 11.01.2013. It is the case of the complainant that the accused sent a reply notice to the complainant by setting up some false contentions. According to the complainant, the accused refused to pay the amount even after getting the statutory notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Before the trial court, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. PW2 was also examined on the side of the complainant. Exts.P1 to P8 were the exhibits marked on the side of the complainant. DW1 to DW3 were examined on the side of the defence. Exts.D1 and D2 were the defence exhibits. Exts.X1 to X15 were marked as court exhibits. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C .'). In default of payment of compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The appeal was heard by the III^rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The appella