Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Harpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRR-3456-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. investments were made based on cheques handed over for liability. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 2. arguments raised on account control and previous liabilities are contested. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. cheques returned due to closed accounts still presume liability under the ni act. (Para 18 , 27 , 30) |
| 4. court concludes no merit in overturning initial judgments; revisions dismissed. (Para 19 , 38 , 51) |
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J. - This order shall disposed of 12 revisions i.e. CRR Nos.3456, 3515, 3520, 3481, 3474, 3476, 3471, 3484 & 3479 of 2019 and CRR Nos.1421 and 1986 of 2022, arising out of 12 separate judgments of conviction and orders of sentence, whereby complaints filed by Dharam Singh (respondent herein) or his son Ashok Kumar, for dishonour of different cheques issued by same accused Harpal Singh (petitioner herein) as director of M/s Pal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., were decided by ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurgaon, convicting accused Harpal Singh under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment in each case for varying period and also to pay compensation amount with default sentence. Appeals against those judgments have been dismissed against conviction but with modification of the sentence.
2. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before Ld. Trial court.
3. Necessary details in the tabulated form are given below: -
| Complaint No. | Cheque No. | Date of cheque | Amount of Cheque (in Rs.) | Date of Bank Return Memo/Remarks | Date of conviction by Trial Court | Compensation Amount and Default period of sentence | Appeal No. | Date of decision of the appeal |
| 1100/2015 | 613233 | 15.03.2015 | 2,50,000 | 19.06.2015/Payment stopped by Court Order | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 3,75,000/- SI 6 Months | 60/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1101/2015 | 613198 | 18.04.2015 | 1,00,000 | 19.06.2015/Payment stopped by Court Order | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 3,75,000/- SI 6 Months | 64/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1106/2015 | 613201 | 18.04.2015 | 1,00,000 | 19.06.2015/Payment stopped by Court Order | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 1,50,000/- SI 6 Months | 55/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1107/2015 | 216565 | 15.09.2015 | 11,00,000 | 21.09.2015/Payment stopped by drawer | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 16,50,000/- SI 6 Months | 62/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1104/2015 | 216598 | 15.06.2015 | 23,50,000 | 25.06.2015/Funds Insufficient’ | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 35,25,000/- SI 6 Months | 56/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1109/2015 | 613234 | 15.06.2015 | 2,50,000 | 21.09.2015/Payment stopped by drawer | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 3,75,000/- SI 6 Months | 59/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1102/2015 | 613188 | 15.06.2015 | 1,50,000 | 19.06.2015/Payment stopped by Court Order | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 2,25,000/- SI 6 Months | 63/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1108/2015 | 613231 | 15.09.2015 | 25,00,000 | 21.09.2015/Payment stopped by drawer | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 37,50,000/- SI 6 Months | 61/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 1103/2015 | 613189 | 15.03.2015 | 15,00,000 | 19.06.2015/Payment stopped by Court Order | 20.08.2016/23.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 22,50,000/- SI 6 Months | 579/31.08.2016 | 02.11.2019 |
| 2724/2015 | 613218 | 15.06.2015 | 3,00,000 | 24.06.2015/Funds Insufficient | 26.08.2016/29.08.2016 - JMIC | RI 1 year and Rs. 4,00,000/- (Delay not condoned in appeal) | 123/13.03.2019 | 07.06.2022 |
| 549/2015 | 613217 | 15.12.2014 | 3,00,000 | 14.02.2015/Funds Insufficient | 26.08.2016/29.08.2016 - JMIC | RI 1 year and Rs. 4,00,000/- (Delay not condoned in appeal) | 123/13.03.2019 | 07.06.2022 |
| 1105/2015 | 613205 | 15.06.2015 | 80,00,000 | 21.09.2015/Funds Insufficient | 26.08.2016/29.08.2016 - JMIC | Rs. 1,20,00,000/- SI 6 Months | 122/13.03.2019 | 07. |
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.
Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act not rebutted by unsubstantiated security cheque claim; such cheques enforceable under Section 138 on dishonour for insufficient funds if liability undischarg....
The dishonour of a cheque due to 'Account Closed' falls within the parameters of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the presumption under Section 139 applies.
Admission of cheque signature raises NI Act presumptions of debt discharge (ss.118(a),139); accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Security/blank signed cheques attract s.138 liability de....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act on cheque admission; security cheque liable if debt subsists; unclaimed notice deemed served; post-dishonour r....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers presumption of debt under NI Act; security cheque liable for existing liability; unlicensed moneylender's NI complaint maintainable; revisional court defers to c....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is robust, shifting the burden to the accused to prove otherwise, which was not achieved in this case.
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
