MUMBAI: A dishonoured cheque is not enough to prove the guilt of an accused in a cheque-bouncing case. In an important judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that there has to be evidence that the person issuing the cheque owed money. ”Mere admission of the signature on the cheque does not relieve the complainant from requirement to prove the pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay the amount shown in the cheque,” said Justice V R Kingaonkar, while quashing the punishment awarded to Jalna resident Rajendraprasad Porwal. The court added that presence of a signed cheque is not sufficient to presume that the accused owed money. The judgment assumes importance considering the number of such cases clogging the courts in the country. There are 14.55 lakh cases of bounced cheques cases pending in the courts, with 4.36 lakh such cases in Maharashtra alone. Around 3,000 new cases are filed every month in Mumbai courts, which has a pendency of about 1.5 lakh cases involving over Rs 6,000 crore. Both the magistrate’s court as well as the sessions court had held Porwal guilty under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court had sentenced Porwal to three months simple imprisonment and had asked him to pay compensation of Rs 25 lakh. The criminal prosecution against Porwal was initiated following a complaint filed by his friend P S Saklecha. The complainant claimed he had lent Rs 25 lakh to Porwal in October 2004, for which the latter gave him a post-dated cheque. In April 2005, when Saklecha presented the cheque to the bank, it bounced. Porwal’s defence was that the cheque had actually been lost and he had issued stop payment orders to his bank. shibu.thomas1@timesgroup.com
THE TIMES OF INDIA; 21 Mar 2008, 0000 hrs IST , Shibu Thomas , TNN
