In The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Another – Respondent
CRM(M) No.280/2021 and CRM(M) No.281/2021
Decided on : 15-7-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 20(2) – Dishonour of cheque – Article 20(2) of Constitution of India enunciates Principle of “double jeopardy” – Offences under Section 138 of NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other – While in a prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act, fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque need not be proved but in a prosecution under Section 420 of IPC, such intention is an important ingredient to be established – Offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out at the time of issuance of cheque itself which is not the case with offence under Section 138 of NI Act – Two offences are distinct from each other and principle of double jeopardy or rule of estoppel does not come into play – Complainants are well within their rights to continue prosecution for both these offences – Order of taking cognizance and issuing process by Trial Magistrate upheld – Petitions dismissed. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
JUDGMENT :
By this common judgment, the afore titled two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are proposed to be disposed of.
2. Through the medium of CRM(M) No.280/2021, the petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent against him for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) as also the proceedings emanating therefrom.
3. It appears that respondent/complainant had filed a complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of NIA Act against the petitioner before the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate). In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner had approached the respondent and offered to sell a patch of land measuring 01 kanal situated at Gangbugh Tehsil and District Budgam, pursuant to which the respondent/complainant advanced a sum of Rs.29.00 lacs as part payment. It was further averred in the complaint that the petitioner/accused had promised to provide the land in question within a week’s time, failing which he was to pay damages to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs. It was further alleged that the petitioner/accused failed to provide the land within the stipulated time as per the agreed terms which made him liable to return the amount received by him along with the damages. According to the respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused issued three cheque bearing Nos.0010168 for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs, 000170 for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs and 000171 for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs all dated 20th March, 2021, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch office Baghat Barzulla. The respondent/complainant presented these cheques before the concerned bank but the same were dishonoured with the endorsement “drawers account closed” vide memo dated 9th April, 2021.The respondent/complainant is stated to have served a demand notice upon the petitioner/accused by sending the same through registered post on 16th April, 2021 but in spite of having received the said notice, the petitioner/accused did not liquidate the amount of cheques to the respondent/complainant compelling him to file the impugned complaint before the trial Magistrate on 30.07.2021.
4. CRM(M) No.281/2021 arises out of a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. As per the impugned complaint, the petitioner/accused had offered to sell a patch of land measuring 10 marlas situated at Gangbugh Tehsil and District Budgam, to respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is stated to have advanced a sum of Rs.14.00 lacs to the petitioner/accused and it was promised by him that the land in question would be handed over to the respondent/complainant within a period of one week failing which the petitioner/accused was to return the amount along with damages to the tune of Ra.10.00 lacs. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused did not deliver the possession of the land to the respondent/complainant within the stipulated time whereafter he, in order to liquidate the debt, issued two cheques bearing Nos.00169 for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs and 000172 for an amount of Rs.9.00 lacs both dated 20th March, 2021, drawn on HDFC Bank Branch unit Baghat, Barzulla. The cheques, when presented to the bank for encashment, were dishonoured by the banker with the endorsement “account closed” vide memo dated 9th April, 2021, and when petitioner/accused did not liquidate the amount of cheques despite receipt of statuotyr demand notice, the impugned complaint came to be filed by the respondent/complainant before the trial Magistrate on 30.07.2021.
5. It has been contended in both the petitions that the respondent/complainant Mushtaq Ahmad, prior to the filing of the aforesaid two complaints, filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam, and pursuant to order passed by the sa
Union of India vs. M/s Cipla Ltd
Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
Maqbool Hussain Vs. State of Bombay
State of Bombay Vs. S.L. Apte and Anr.
A.A. Mulla and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.
: Offences under Section 138 of NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other and principle of double jeopardy or rule of estoppel does not come into play.
Distinct offences under the IPC and NIA can coexist, and concurrent prosecutions do not violate the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
The court distinguished between offences under S.138 and S.420, affirming that acquittal in one does not bar prosecution in the other due to differing legal elements.
Prosecutions under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 N.I. Act are distinct; trial for both based on same facts not permissible due to differing evidentiary requirements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of double jeopardy was not applicable due to the differences in the ingredients of the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and S....
Judicial Decorum – Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two-Judges’ Bench of equal strength are conflicting, issue of law involved must be referred to a larger Bench as the same is de....
The judgment establishes that the absence of dishonest intention at the inception of a transaction is critical for a conviction under Section 420 IPC, and that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.....
Double Jeopardy – Plea of Double Jeopardy cannot be sustained where subsequent offence is entirely different from previous offence.
Joint prosecution for multiple cheque dishonours is permissible if they arise from a single transaction under the Negotiable Instruments Act and may be tried together as per the Code of Criminal Proc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.