Gambling money cheque bounce

Once you have decided a plan of action on your own friend, you may not receive any guidance legally.

Cheque should have been given to discharge a legally enforceable debt only.

My lawyer is suggesting not go involve Gambling part as i might get punishement as well because i have partcipated in it as well.

Well, if i will not have to pay 10 lacs then i am ready to accept gambling part. So will i be Jailed for this? I belong to a reputed family so really cant go to Jail. Yet i am ready to pay any fine to be released from court.

Your lawyer is exaggerating. You cannot punished for such a reply; no court can take cognisance of your reply to sent you to jail. Any punishment for a criminal offence is strictly governed by the provisions of law.

Moreover, it is seldom that a person is punished for being a gambler; situation could be different had you been in conducting the business of gambling. Moreover, the Gambling Act, 1887 orvides only nomional punishment. It is the practice in our country that only fines are imposed in such cases.

Dear Sir,

I really appreciate your view. It was done 2016-2017 when i wasn't matured enough. Now i am not doing it. That is why i want to get rid of it.

Originally posted by : P. Venu
	Your lawyer is exaggerating. You cannot punished for such a reply; no court can take cognisance of your reply to sent you to jail. Any punishment for a criminal offence is strictly governed by the provisions of law. Moreover, it is seldom that a person is punished for being a gambler; situation could be different had you been in conducting the business of gambling. Moreover, the Gambling Act, 1887 orvides only nomional punishment. It is the practice in our country that only fines are imposed in such cases.

If i directly confess to court that, i gave the cheque in respect for gambling's loss, what would be the verdict?

your basica query is not understandable.

You are admitting that cheques for given for satisfaction of illegal dues. As pointed out by experts above the same is not enforeable.

You are also introducing an angle of of "debt" and sayig about "bank".

Your alawyer ha advised you not to raise aspect of gambling.  Just consider that as to how do you prove that you legally owe nothing to your ex-friend agains tthese cheques (though onus is on him to allege that he has a legitimate claim against you on the basis of these cheques) but mere signing of chque raises a prim-facie presumption that you legally owe money to him.

 On the same time you have to refute that there are no legally encofrceable dues. 

You maintain that you did not give the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. In order to satisfy Section 139 you maintain that you gave the cheque or cheques as a loan. Or, as you had many monetary transactions with your friend, you maintain that you thought that you owed him the amount, but later found out that you owed him nothing. Normally the burden of proof is on the complainant. But under NIA Section 139 transfers the burden to the accused. But the law of natural justice should ultimately prevail. I am not a lawyer. But I have successfuly helped others by advising them.

There is furtyher a difference

situation -I

You gave cheque as a looser in gamble

In such case these cheques are not enforceable as the person will not be able to prove your legal liability but it is you who haas to rebut by saying that it was an illegal transaction.

situation -II

you borrowed money from some third party ande geve these cheques.

In such case the cheques are enforeceable.

There can also be a situation III

You gave the cheque as a loan to the complainant. The burden will shift back to the complainant. He will have to state another valid purpose of the cheque to rebut the statement of the accused. Ultimately the purpose of the cheque has to be established. Section 139 is only a presumption, which has to be proven on the floor of the court. Section 139 is weak under the law.