Accused you can win cheque bounce case.

Keep Advertising !!

There are few on this forum with funny names, who claim that they can win any cheque bounce case !! WOW !! Very soon these funny names will shift to RAPE Cases as NI act amendment will make their shop more or less customerless, and rape cases are increasing day by day... Then they will say : You can win any rape case if handled properly from day one !!! 

In my last few years of association with this forum, I have not seen a single worthwhile suggestion or advise from these funny names, they just babble with their half cooked knowledge like those quakes on road side of every class B cities who claim treatement of every disease.

Disclaimer : If they can show a single post where they have given some sage advise or some lawful advise, then I will withdraw above statement.

The cheque law is a draconian law and for simple money transactions criminal procedure has been provided.

So it is the duty of  any advocate if any accused comes to him than to help him to come out of the clutches of this unreasonable  law.

Every presumptive law can be classified in the category of draconian, but then thats how it works. ------------ But openly telling people that every cheque bounce case can be won is kind of dishonesty and insult to our system........ Take for example I buy something against proper bill, give proper receipt and issue a cheque of Rs. 15 Lacs to clear this liability.... this cheque bounces and I contact one funny name and tell him that I will pay 50% of the cheque value as his fee, please save me.......This is not only dishonesty but perpetuating dishonesty...

My advise to all those cheque bounce accused, if they feel that they are honest and the holder is misusing the presumption under S.139, then they must fight properly with the help of best available counsels, they will surely come out of this. And my advise to those cheque bounced accused, who have dishonestly allowed the cheque to go dishonor, they should think twice before proceeding further with the trials, there is no escape and there should not be any escape for such people. This is the best possible suggestion I give to my clients and giving on this forum. Please do not attempt the folly of winning the case if cheque has bounced due to your dishonesty, settle it off if you can. After a year or so when the government brings mens rea also in this, then may be some chance for such dishonest people but not now.

At the end my sympathy is always with those people who have helplessly got stuck into high EMI loan transactions etc, they want to clear the dues but they cannot due to bad financial conditions or lay offs, such people should not be punished and they can be defended. Ideally this section is not meant for such cases but our over enthusiastic overburdened trial courts are adding salt to injury in such cases.

R TRIVEDI you are finding faults with SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT Judgements and COURTS so if you HAVE any knowledge of court working why you do not work for complainants.

Cheque bounce is only civil liability of money so giving it nature of crimnal action  is it self  a great injustice.

ACCUSED OF ANY CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE SHOULD BOLDLY FIGHT THE CASE SUCESS WILL BE YOURS AND WE WILL ALSO ASSIST YOU TO ACHIEVE THE SAME,  You have not paid in time is not such big crime that you should be sent to JAIL .CONTACT WTIH COMPLETE DETAILS OF YOUR CASE.

Laxminarain, First please tell how Supreme Court can take away S.315 CrPC !!

Conduct some actual court case  in criminal trial.

Funny names, Funny Faces and Funny claims....  I have a feeling and which is clear from these posts also that all these Funny Names and Funny Faces are operating together.

Hon HC/SC has approved the conviction of thousands of cheque bounce accused, still these funny names claim that any cheque bounce accused can win. Except writing you can win, fight boldly (as if it is some wrestling AKHARA), it is civil case, this will not work, that will not work, SC Has closed all the doors, CONTACT US WITH FULL DETAILS....... these are few advises by these funny names, nothing more. These funny names are consistent and disciplined, they just do not write anything other than these 5-10 lines..... not even a single worthwhile post. They know if they right anything beyond  these lines their knowledge will be exposed... a la S.315 CrPC Set Aside Type.

It shows your deep frustration and inferiority complex of not having conducted any criminal trial.

Pl tell us which court you practice if pactice at all so that we can decide in that court  it self whether you can find faults with SUPREME COURT, HICH COURT JUDGEMENTS  and courts in general. PUBLICLY . Till that time please stop filthy language for others.

Pl tell, Pl contact, pl send details.... keep advertsing, but please do not mislead accused that  "ALL THE CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES CAN BE WON".

Write more than those 5-10 lines and if you all have some idea of proper defense please come forward and state, instead of every time writing, this will not work,  that will not work, fight boldly... Talk like a counsel with valid arguments..... Although I do not criticise SC/HC orders but even to do so  require sound knowledge of law which you people lack.

I give you a challenge except Kerala high Court none of the HCs have understood the proper meaning of S.139 (I have not seen any order)

1. The presumption under S.139 is given to holder, not to possessor. The word "possessor" is used 3-4 times in NI act and used differently from Holder. The word Holder is defined in NI Act.  A person who possesses the cheque for valid consideration.

2. There is no presumption for the amount, the presumption is only with respect to liability type. Drawer cannot say that he gave the cheque as Gift, for some other liability away from what complainant says, it has to be proved.

3. The amount has to be proved by complainant to get the benefit of presumption.

4. There is no law that mere signature on the cheque is execution of the cheque, and admitting the signature will give the presumption under S.139.

5. There is no direct inapplicability of men rea, that means criminal intent must be there, but this issue has been not discussed in detail barring few side remarks in one or two orders.

How many cases you have won on such grounds ? Do not advise your clients not to respond to notice, they must but with care. And also Sachin R Tendulkar is same as  S R Tendulkar, S.315 CrPC cannot be set aside by SC, and that SC Dychem order is very good for accused not bad as you guys have made out.

Dear Advocate Defense:

I had taken a loan from my friend, under a proper loan agreement, in which all the terms and conditions of the loan regarding amount lent, dates, interest rate, mode and date of repayment etc were mentioned. I have delivered to my friend a PDC for the loan+interest amount, under a PDC covering letter, stating that the chq has been given for repayment of dues and not as security chq. I have also signed a notarised affidavit stating the same. The chq when presented to my a/c got bounced due to insufficiency of funds. My friend issued notices to me as per and according to the time schedule prescribed in sec 138 of NI act. All advocates I have met say that I cannot win the case. I have not paid the amount and cannot pay in future. I need to appear in court within 7 days. Pls suggest how I can contest and win the case.

I assure you I have the required amount in my a/c to pay your consultancy fees, which I shall pay only by chq.

I also have a case in hand : One gentleman purchased jewellary worth 11.25 Lacs from TanishK Showroom, he issued Rs. 1.25 lacs as cash and balance Rs. 10 Lacs by cheque. Tanishk issued the proper cash receipt and bill, and the same bill is signed by him and his wife as well. TanishK also got a previleged membership form filled by him and his wife citing the above bill number and cheque number, and a special signed Tanishk card was issued to him. This card is issued to customers who buy more than Rs. 10 Lacs worth of material in single invoice.Tanishk also has the video footage of that date (captured from various CC TV cameras).... This cheques is dishonored on account of insufficient funds and TanishK legal team did all the formalities, the drawer replied  to the legal notice as sent to his known address (correct address) stating that as of now he does not have the money and he will pay after 1 year, now the case is on for 16th July 2013 for accused presence..... This man approached me for defense and promised to pay me 50%, I turned him down.  Let Advocate Defense / Laxminarain etc come forward and enlighten how this case can be won, because any cheque bounce case can be won.

Please give details of court , place and court name for both the above detailed cases . Even the office assistants of our JUNIORS will move simple applications so that the complainats remain busy for long long time in procedures.

Even mighty GOVT has realised that it is not possible to make fool proof law in such matters and hence decided to withdraw this law. So it is just difficult to even make a perfect fictitious complaint case.

We have large no of websites, blogs and email campaigns run by grateful persons who have come out of clutches of finacial laws . They will  be glad to even bear the costs for real sufferes who have nothing left..

These guys will help only those who come to them and pay them fee, this forum is only for advertising for them, they will not give any advise because entire work is done by the office assistant of their juniors, that means by peons. I feel they cannot give any advise because work is done by only the peons not by them, so they are not equipped to give advise. It is like a doctor saying, come to me, my junior compounder's assistant will dress you up and keep your wound green for long long time.  Hats off to such doctors !! So basically idea is not to win but to make money by issuing process after process, And why it is happening ? Because our Hon trial courts are carrying out the summon trial in absolute violation of S.143 of the NI Act.

Mighty government has not decided to withdraw, just making sure that criminal aspect is understood in proper perspective, both the cases above (examples) deserve punishment even after possible amendment by mighty government in time to come.  

No one comes to the rescue of dishonest drawer, and people immediately understand why the cheque got dishonored. I am all for thoese people who got stuck in EMIs due to lay offs etc, they are willing to pay but cannot pay, such people can be helped, simply by liquidating the asset for which they have taken EMI, this is a civil remedy because the person/institution who gave loan to such people without taking sufficient security is also at fault.

i fully agree with you, sir