TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was sustainable in view of the accused's plea of lost cheque and alleged non-existence of a legally enforceable debt; (ii) Whether the compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, required interference.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was sustainable in view of the accused's plea of lost cheque and alleged non-existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Analysis: The cheque bore the admitted signature of the accused and was presented on the date mentioned on it. A post-dated instrument becomes a cheque only on the date appearing on its face, and presentation within the statutory period satisfies the requirement of Section 138. Once execution and signature were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, operated in favour of the complainant. The defence of loss of cheque was found improbable and unsupported by reliable material. Minor inconsistencies regarding the mode of advancing money did not dislodge the documentary and banking evidence relied upon by the complainant.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was rightly sustained and the accused's defence failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, required interference.
Analysis: Though the conviction and custodial sentence were maintained, the compensation granted by the courts below was twice the cheque amount. Compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must bear a just and reasonable relation to the proven liability. In the facts of the case, the enhancement beyond the cheque amount was found excessive.
Conclusion: The compensation was reduced to the cheque amount, with consequential modification of the default sentence.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of reducing compensation, while the conviction and substantive imprisonment were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A post-dated cheque is enforceable from the date it bears, and once the drawer admits signature, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, operate until rebutted by a probable defence; compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must remain proportionate to the established liability.
TaxTMI 
