Threshold defence in cheque dishonour proceedings can be considered early, including absence from business management and India.

A person arraigned in proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may raise, at the threshold, the defence that he was not able for the day-to-day management of the business and was outside India when the alleged offence occurred. The Supreme Court found it improper to defer that contention to trial where the accused had sought discharge and quashing under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the High Court should have examined the passport entries relied on to show departure from India and absence thereafter, rather than leaving the issue for later stages. The refusal to consider the plea at the initial stage was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's defence that he was not responsible for the day-to-day management of the business and was of India during the relevant period could be considered at the initial stage, and whether the High Court ought to have examined the passport entries before deferring the matter to trial.

Analysis: The appellant had sought discharge and quashing of proceedings arising out of complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court declined interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the view that the appellant's contention regarding non-involvement in the business and absence from India should be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The Court held that this approach was not sustainable because the appellant was entitled to show at the initial stage, before plea was taken, that he had no role in the day-to-day management of the business and was not in India when the alleged offence occurred. The Court also directed that the High Court should examine the passport entries, since the appellant claimed to have left India in January 2003 and not returned thereafter.

Conclusion: The appellant's plea was required to be considered at the threshold, and the High Court's refusal to do so was set aside to that extent, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---