Back
R.BASANT
Rajan – Appellant
Versus
Sharafudheen – Respondent
What is the effect of the endorsement "refer to drawer" on establishing insufficiency of funds under Section 138 NI Act? What are the admissibility considerations of Ex.P-13 under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, Sec. 2(8) and Sec. 4? What is the appropriate scope of appellate interference when a trial court’s acquittal is challenged in a NI Act cheque bounce case?
Key Points: - The court held that the endorsement "refer to drawer" ordinarily indicates insufficiency of funds, and the complaint, along with the notice Ex.P-10 and sworn statements, supports this ground [21000282790006][21000282790007][21000282790009]. - Ex.P-13 (bank extract) was admitted and considered despite imperfect certification under Sec. 2(8); the Bombay Bombay decision cited supports its admissibility where no prejudice is shown [21000282790012][21000282790014][21000282790015]. - The appellate court found the ingredients of Section 138 established and convicted the accused, setting aside the acquittal and imposing fine with compensation under Sec. 357(1) Cr.P.C. [21000282790016][21000282790018] (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses the appropriate standard of proof under Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act for determining dishonour due to insufficiency of funds [21000282790007]. - The decision emphasizes that the complaint need not be read in a ritualistic or pedantic manner and may rely on accompanying documents and statements to interpret "refer to drawer" as indicating insufficient funds [21000282790006]. - The court acknowledges and addresses objections to Ex.P-13’s certification and nonetheless determines its relevance and admissibility in the case [21000282790012][21000282790015].
2. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued cheques for Rs. 90,000 to him for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued as insisted by Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was duly received and acknowledged. But no payment was made as demanded. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint.
3. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused entered appearance and denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1. An official of the drawee bank was examined as P.W. 2. Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked.
4. The accused denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence and which were put to him. He admitted that the cheques were written on cheque leaves issued to him by his bank to operate his account. He also admitted his
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
