Signature on cheque

You will be acquitted by the court as you have not issued the cheque.

Advocates actually conducting trials in courts should be up to date with current cases.

Very recently three criminal cases have got national headlines.

1) Tarun tejpal.  at Goa for alleged molestation of an employee.

2) Actor Rajpat in Delhi HC - ten days imprisonment for false affidavit..

3) Retired SC Judge   JUSTICE Ganguli and now chairman of Human rights commission West Bengal..facing complaint of a lady law intern.

So when there is a complaint than irresponsible defense does not work, in above case of sign deffer may attract other sections of  IPC.

Better take other and safer  defenses depending on complaint which will be in plenty.

Maru - Advocate.

you must first understand what is complaint u/s. 138 of NI Act and tell what is the relevancy of your cited cases with 138 cases.

Irresponsible defense after filing the complaint does not work.

oh you mean kavita has just taken defense and in actual kavita has signed cheque.

You have to prove that signature on cheque is not yours by cogent evidence and if you got success,you will be acquitted by the court

Yes but at the same time accused has to also prove that the complaint cheque was not handed over by him to the complainant otherwise it amounts to cheating, fraud and breach of trust'

The straight forward question is : Account is in whose name ? Mother or Son ?

If it is in the name of mother... then what is Son doing as accused ? If it is in Son's name then signature defense will be taken up only at the time of final argument depending on other material evidence.

Mr. Daru Advocate

You dont make irrational references.

Please  anyone explain him there is no significance of Tejpal and other cases (refered by him) with 138 proceedings. I think this fellow has not even read the single line of the cases. In addtion to this these are not judgements / final verdicts of court these are news only. Moreover taking false defenses are not decided by above referred cases there is a law. So please stop making irrational / irrevant references. Peoples are approching this forum for rational advise.

Shirish,

There are couple of people like Maru on this forum, who have been posting stupid and irrelevant statements, there only stand is "any CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE CAN BE WON, IF FOUGHt PROPERLY  FROM STARTING."

The question I asked these guys " What if prosecution also fights properly" I got no answer except some further stupidity. Whenever any other counsel suggests something lawful, they will promptly respond that this will not work that will not work because Supreme Court has closed all the doors. These guys have gone on giving advise that accused should not even respond to legal notice !! Let the complainant prove that he sent the notice and received by accused !! WOW !!.

Anyway I have started ignoring these people, but when you raised so vehemently then I thought I would let you know not to waste your time on these guys.

Anyway coming to your question : if the account is not that of Son's then he cannot be made accused, but if account is of his and signature are not his, then trial would proceed.