Skip to main content

Supreme Court on Sec.138 NI Act: No need for Complainant to produce Account Books during Criminal Trial.

The Supreme Court, in one of its recent judgement, has observed that the production of the account books/cash book may not be relevant in a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In the present case, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court order in which the accused was convicted. The Appellate Court had held that the complainant didn't produce cash and account books to prove that the amount was due and payable by the accused. The complaint was that the accused purchased the pesticides on credit from the company and made part payments by issuing a cheque, which when presented for collection returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds".
The High Court, on the other hand, restored the Trial Court judgement and observed that
"the reason was given by the Lower Appellate Court that he didn't bring the cash book or order book, etc. could well be understood, if civil suit is tried" but on the contrary, the order passed by the lower Appellate Court is in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act."
When the case was presented before the Supreme Court, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna on 20-01-2020 observed that:
"As held by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court that the cheque was issued towards the amount due and payable by the appellant for purchase of pesticides. As rightly observed by the High Court production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in the civil court, but may not be so in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. This is because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, we do not see any ground warranting interference with the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the N.I.Act."

You can read full judgment here 
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/580/580_2018_5_13_19690_Order_20-Jan-2020.pdf



Comments

  1. Advocate Narender SinghApril 3, 2021 at 4:41 PM

    I admire with this article those who are uneducated people they don't be know about there right and duty. I am an advocate for supreme court of India who always give suggestion to those people who don't be know about their right and duty. I would like to suggest to all advocate to explore their knowledge to uneducated people.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Law relating to WILLS in India

There is a saying “Where there is a Will, there is a way”. However, in absence of a properly-executed Will, the ways ahead may be too complicated to handle. Bigwig families in India like Ambanis, Birlas, and Ranbaxy brothers will not disagree that the road to succession is generally paved with ill Will chronicles. Will planning as part of financial management, has not assumed that much relevance in India what it should actually have. By making a Will one can assuredly rest that his properties devolve as desired and the rightful heirs receive their share. According to the Indian Succession Act 1925, a Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator, with respect to his property which he/she desires to be put into effect after his/her death. Post death of a person, two scenarios arise in respect of his property; (a) as per his Will i.e. testamentary, or (b) according to the prevalent law of succession, when no Will is made. In the event of an individual dying intestate ...
1 comment
Read more

Interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC: Latest law on limitation for filing written statement

In this article, I shall interpret the law regarding filing of written statement, governed by order 8 Rule 1 CPC, with the aid of laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had settled the law that the provision to file Written Statement within 30 days (further extendable to 90 days) from date of service of summons, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Lawyers across the country, have been relying on the two judgments of Supreme Court "Kailash v. Nankhu" {( 2005 ) 4 SCC  480 }  and "Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India" {( 2005 ) 6 SCC  344 }  which hold that that procedural law is for effective administration of justice and is not above the justice. These judgments have been referred while filing applications to condone delay in filing Written Statement beyond the limit of 90 days as prescribed in CPC. ...
Post a Comment
Read more