Amused since no practical experience of conducting any criminal trial.

This shows your immaturity and shallowness, when you have nothing to answer you raise some stupid points. In future stop honking around that ;Any case can be won" give advise based on facts and citations.

sir,

     please guide me .what should I do. accused is saying that he has given cheque for security purpose.

Seema, Pl understand in any case what ever substantial averments made by either party, if objected by opposing party, then they will have to be proved. In your case you state that it was not a security cheque, you must have given some evidence with respect to receipt of this cheque by you, moreover you have the benefit of presumption under S.139, now if accused says that it was a security cheque, then onus is on him to give substantial arguments against your averments and in support of his contention.

Although it is ruled that S.138 of NI Act is not applicable on security cheque, but proving that a cheque was security cheque is somewhat difficult (for example if accused can prove that the cheque was lying with holder and further to that many other cheques were received and credited to holder.. this is good enough proof). Moreover a security cheque is prima facie a conditional cheque and security comes into picture only if the condition is dishonored by the drawer. Any conditional cheque is not negotiable till that condition is violated, so when the cheque was received by you it was not a negotiable instrument. if it was blank it was not a bill of exchange either.

How courts reacts to this is not known to me, but if you can prove without contradicting your earlier stand that yes it was a security cheque and due diligence was taken by you in assessing the liability, and also due intimation was given to drawer before presenting the cheque along with liability assessment details, then may be case can go in your favour. Although I am personally of the opinion that financier should not take security cheque thinking that S.138 would help them in future, for the simple reason that a cheque cannot be a security, and a blank cheque is not a cheque at all.

to prove nature of transaction held between comp and accd

sir, plz oblize me by providing the exact SC citation regarding the security cheque

greatfuly ur's

gkjha.adv@gmail.com