Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S.Ahluwalia
Suresh Singh Sikarwar – Appellant
Versus
Radheshyam Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding cheque dishonor. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on cheque dishonor. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. the court examined actual dishonor motive beyond bank endorsements. (Para 7) |
| 5. legal interpretations of section 138. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. conclusion and sentencing order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
This criminal appeal, under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2011 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Case Number 5103/2009, by which respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that the respondent had issued a cheque No. 90299 of Rs.1,35,000 in discharge of his legal liability. The said cheque was presented and the same was returned by the Bank with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds and drawers signature differ". When an information was given to respondent, he again instructed to re-deposit the cheque which was once again returned back with an endorsement "Insufficient funds and alteration requires full s
A dishonored cheque primarily for insufficient funds establishes liability under Section 138, while secondary reasons like signature discrepancies are irrelevant unless intent to defraud is proven.
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....
A cheque issued from an account not held by the issuer fails to satisfy the basic requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to acquittal.
Cheques post-bank merger returned 'Funds Insufficient' attract Section 146 presumption; validity expiry defence triable at trial, not quashable under Section 482 CrPC despite potential non-compliance....
Admission of cheque issuance triggers Ss.118(a),139 NI Act presumptions of debt; accused must rebut by evidence, not mere 313 CrPC denial. Signature mismatch and security cheques for existing liabili....
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
