I DIFFER WITH YOU  VERY OFTEN SOME SENIORS LIKE LEARNED  MR. K. K. VENUGOPAL CROSSED THE BARRIERS OF SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT. I MYSELF ALSO CROSSED A SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY CASE 1985 LOGICALLY RAISING ALTOGETHER  A NEW ISSUE. DON'T FORGET WE ARE LAW MAKERS WHICH ALL COURTS INCLUDING SUPREME COURT  FOLLOWS.  SECONDLY OUR ART OF ARGUMENTS REVERSED MANY JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT.

Please give case details where you have gone against SUPREME COURT Judgments.

I appreciate the painstaking advices and opinions of learned and senior experts on the subject issue and I prefer to favor Mr.Joseph Wifred's advice to the author.

@ Laxminarayan ji,

 Either I could not get you understand my say as appearing in my last post on the subject or you could not understand my say intentionally to test me.  In my last post I stated in 2nd. line "...crossed the barriers of  Supreme Court Judgement " and in the 3rd. line ".....crossed a Supreme Court Judgement in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. " and in the 4th. line "......logically raising altogether a new issue " These comments  clearly transpires that I wanted to say to create and/or to formulate a new issue altogether different to the issues took up in the decided cases of Supreme court which are preventing you to get desired redressal. Besides, I need to mention here two notable cases one is GOLOKNATH case and another KESHABANANDA BHARATI case,  you know better than me that in those two cases new issues were framed on the question of constitutionality and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were reversed. In the present case under query if new issue can formulate to avoid the barrier of Supreme Court decisions and to prove that there was no intention of criminality for issuing post dated cheques in favour of the Banker long ago etc. The querist can be saved from the charges of criminality in issuing cheques which were subsequently bounced. 

@ Laxminarayan ji,

 Either I could not get you understand my say as appearing in my last post on the subject or you could not understand my say intentionally to test me.  In my last post I stated in 2nd. line "...crossed the barriers of  Supreme Court Judgement " and in the 3rd. line ".....crossed a Supreme Court Judgement in Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. " and in the 4th. line "......logically raising altogether a new issue " These comments  clearly transpires that I wanted to say to create and/or to formulate a new issue altogether different to the issues took up in the decided cases of Supreme court which are preventing you to get desired redressal. Besides, I need to mention here two notable cases one is GOLOKNATH case and another KESHABANANDA BHARATI case,  you know better than me that in those two cases new issues were framed on the question of constitutionality and earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were reversed. In the present case under query if new issue can formulate to avoid the barrier of Supreme Court decisions and to prove that there was no intention of criminality for issuing post dated cheques in favour of the Banker long ago etc. The querist can be saved from the charges of criminality in issuing cheques which were subsequently bounced. 

DEAR MR. QUERRIST

                                       THIS IS A CHEQUE RETURN CASE AND THE MAIN FACTOR IN THIS IS YOU ARE NOT IN THE COUNTRY AND HAD GONE ABROAD ON A EMPLOYER VISA WHICH THE EMPLOYER CAN REVOKE ANYTIME . MR. BISWANATH ROY BEING A VERY SENIOR ADVOCATE AND THAT TOO FROM CALCUTTA MUST NOT GET ANGRY WITH ME FOR DIFFERING IN HIS OPINION ON CERTAIN MATTERS . THE QUERRIST IS AN ACCUSED IN SEC 138 CASE TILL HE PROVES THAT HE IS INNOCENT . IN OTHER CRIMINAL CASES ONLY IF THE CHARGE IS PROVED THEN THE PERSON IS AN ACCUSED WHEN THE JUDGEMENT IS PRONOUNCED . NO ACCUSED CAN BE REPRESENTED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN A CRIMINAL CASE . AT THE MOST THE ACCUSED CAN FILE PETITION TO DISPENSE WITH HIS APPEARANCE IN THE CASE . BUT THIS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS MY SENIOR FRIENDS KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN IN HIGH PROFILE CASES . 

      HE HAS ADMITTED THAT A WARRANT IS PENDING AGAINST HIM . HE MUST TAKE STEPS TO " RECALL THE WARRANT " FIRST . FOR THAT HIS PRESENCE IN THE COURT IS NECESSARY AT LEAST FOR A DAY . THE BANK WILL AGREE TO PAY THE AMOUNT IN INSTALMENT. BUT TILL THEN THE CASE WILL STAND AND THE BANK WILL NOT WITHDRAW IT .HOW YOU WILL APPEAR FOR EVERY HEARING . YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THE BANK FOR AN AMOUNT AND THEN REQUEST THEM THAT YOU WILL EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND IF YOU CAN GIVE PROPERTY SECURITY THEN ASK THE BANK TO " WITHDRAW THE CASE FIRST ". AFTER THE CASE IS WITHDRAWN THEN YOU DO WHAT YOU HAVE AGREED WITH THE BANK . CERTAIN MATTERS I AM UNABLE TO PUT IN THIS OPEN FORUM AS THE BANK MAY BE WATCHING EVERYTHING . BUT THE FIRST MATTER IS YOU MUST RECALL YOUR ARREST WARRANT . SINCE YOU HAVE ALREADY NEGOTIATED WITH THE BANK WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH ANY OF YOUR ADVOCATES , NOW YOU CANNOT GO BACK ON YOUR COMMITMENT.

         YOU ARE GETTING LOANS AT VERY LOW INTEREST LIKE     3 % PER ANNUM IN MANY OF THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES . IT IS BETTER FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOAN LIKE THAT AND REPAY THE BALANCE LOAN AMOUNT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BANK MUST GIVE YOU A  " NO DUE CERTIFICATE " . THE BANK WILL AGREE BUT AFTER YOU CLOSE THE LOAN IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET A NO DUE CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK . SO IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CLOSE THE LOAN THEN AFTER ARRANGING THE FUNDS , YOU TAKE A INTERNATIONAL DEMAND DRAFT FAVORING THE BANK , PROVIDE THEM THE DEMAND DRAFT NUMBER , DATE, AMOUNT , BANK EVERYTHING AND ASK THEM TO SEND YOU THE " NO DUE CERTIFICATE ". THE BANK WILL SEND IT WITH A CONDITION IN THE CERTIFICATE THAT IT IS VALID TILL THIS DATE . THAT IS THE TIME GIVEN TO YOU IN THE CERTIFICATE WILL BE THE TIME WHEN YOUR DEMAND DRAFT REACHES THEM AND THEY REALIZE THE AMOUNT AND GIVE CREDIT TO YOUR ACCOUNT . OR IF ANY OF YOUR WELL WISHER IS THERE ,THEN HE CAN GO TO THE BANK AND EXCHANGE THE DEMAND DRAFT AND THE LETTER ACROSS THE COUNTER . IF YOU HAND OVER THE DEMAND DRAFT , THEN EVEN IF YOU WAIT FOR A WHOLE DAY , YOU WILL NOT GET THE CERTIFICATE. IT IS ADVISABLE TO SETTLE THE MATTER IN THE COURT BY HANDING OVER THE DEMAND DRAFT IN THE COURT AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE BANK MUST FILE PETITION WITHDRAWING THE CASE AGAINST YOU . DON'T AGREE TO THE CONDITION THAT THE BANK WILL FILE THE PETITION IN THE NEXT HEARING . THEY WILL DISAPPEAR FOR THE NEXT TWO OR THREE HEARING . THEN YOU MAY HAVE TO " GATE CRASH IN TO THE BANK'S MAIN OFFICE NOT THE BRANCH " TO CATCH HOLD OF THE PERSON WHO FILED THE CASE . THIS IS ON EXPERIENCE .  - JOSEPH WILFRED - 07/02/2014 AT 19:15 HRS     

Oh God ! Mr. J. wilfred totally misunderstood me .  I never said that the Power of Attorney holder shall represent the accused but  I categorically  wrote that the Power of Attorney holder shall appoint a lawyer on behalf of the accused and shall direct him to represent the accused in the court and to collect all case papers from the court. I FURTHER STATE THAT AS A LAW EXPERT I opined the appropriate legal action only.

DEAR MR. ROY 

                          I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD EXECUTE A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF A TRUST WORTHY PERSON AND LET THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY ENGAGE A ADVOCATE AT HYDERABAD  TO DEFEND THE ACCUSED IN THE CASE . MY QUESTION IS " THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY SHOULD SIGN THE VAKALAT ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED " AND THEN ONLY THE ADVOCATE CAN FILE THE VAKALAT SIGNED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE COURT AND APPLY FOR THE COPIES . WILL THE COURT ACCEPT THE VAKALAT SIGNED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND FILED BY THE ADVOCATE IN THE COURT ? MY ANSWER IS DEFINITELY IN THE NEGATIVE ONLY . EVEN ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT THE COURT HAD ACCEPTED THE VAKALAT FILED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED , WILL THE BANK'S ADVOCATE ALLOW THIS ? IF THERE IS ANY JUDGEMENT IN SUCH A MATTER , PLEASE LET ME KNOW .

        THE SECOND MATTER IS THERE IS A WARRANT PENDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN THE COURT .EVEN WHILE FILING THE VAKALAT IN THE COURT BY THE ADVOCATE , THE ACCUSED MUST BE PRESENT IN THE COURT . THE PERSON ABROAD HAD ALREADY EXCHANGED MAILS BETWEEN HIM AND THE BANK . THE BANK HAD STATED EVERYTHING IN THE MAIL AS TO IN WHICH COURT WARRANT IS PENDING AGAINST THAT PERSON ETC. THE BANK WILL NOT PLAY BY GIVING FALSE DETAILS ABOUT THE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT TO IN THE MAIL . IF THE PERSON FINDS OUT THAT THE BANK HAD PROVIDED FALSE DETAILS ABOUT A PROCEEDING IN A COURT AGAINST THAT PERSON AND THAT TOO IN A MAIL , THAT PERSON CAN EASILY FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BANK ACCORDING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2010 AS AMENDED UP TO DATE . FOR THAT COMPLAINT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY CAN FILE THE COMPLAINT IN ANY COURT . THIS IS PERMITTED IN A SIMILAR 138 CASE IN 1995 ITSELF . BUT WE FILED A DISCHARGE PETITION TO FIND OUT WHETHER THAT SENIOR COUNSEL WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE A JUDGEMENT . THE DISCHARGE PETITION WAS ALSO FILED BY A SENIOR COUNSEL ONLY. IT TOOK 4 MONTHS FOR THE COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL TO PRODUCE A JUDGEMENT . NOW HE IS A VERY BIG SHOT AND WILL APPEAR ONLY FOR HIGH PROFILE CASES . BUT FINALLY WE WON THE CASE AFTER 4 AND 1/2 YEARS AS THE CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT . THE COMPLAINANT COULD NOT APPEAR FOR CROSS EXAMINATION TILL THE END . HE CAME ONLY FOR CHIEF EXAMINATION . WE HAD VERY STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM . IF WE PRODUCE THOSE MATTERS , THEN HE MAY LAND IN CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AS THE EVIDENCE IS LIKE THAT . WE WERE PREPARED TO PRODUCE THAT .THAT IS IN MADRAS CITY ONLY . NOW WE ARE ENGAGED IN A CASE IN MADRAS CITY ONLY FOR 5 YEARS AND OUT OF THAT 5 YEARS THE SO CALLED ACCUSED DID NOT APPEAR FOR 3 YEARS . ONLY THE ADVOCATE IS APPEARING AND THAT TOO ONCE IN EVERY 3 MONTHS. THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT COMING FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRANSFERRED TO THE FAST TRACK COURT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS HAD CROSSED . WE HAVE ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR QUASH UNDER SECTION 482 IN THE HIGH COURT AND KEPT THAT ALSO PENDING . WE BROUGHT THAT THRICE BUT DID NOT PRESS FOR ADMISSION, STAY,AND DISPENSE WITH. BUT WE HAVE FILED EVERYTHING TOGETHER ONLY .  -JOSEPH WILFRED - 08/02/2014 AT 01.31 HRS     

@ Mr. J. Wilfred

You are well aware of that I left this platform because I experienced that I am not a fit professional to act as an Expert.. But I feel proud to gain some decorations from some experts like God father, Guru, Vishma, Teacher of Law etc.etc. which I believe no body could able to earn in LCI before . Although I feel proud for those decorations. I have a very long practicing experience that helped me to earn some defense and prosecution approach which are innovations of my own. Members of this Forum lost my association for sharing such of my experience In reply to your views I REQUEST YOU to contact me in my personal mail if you so like. My mail- bnroy.advocate@gmail.com

Adv. Roy,

This gentleman case apart, but present position of law is as follows:

1. "If the payment is made after the case is instituted, then the case may not be ended, but it will have consideration on sentence." 

2. It is also being permitted by the courts to pay the cheque amount on the first date of appearance by accused on summons. If accused does so, then even if complainant insists for proceeding ahead with the case, the court has the discretion to close the matter.

3. Offense under S.138 is compoundable even at SC appeal level, now the other party in this case is Bank, if Bank dues are paid to the satisfaction of the Bank, then compoundability is certain.

4. if the accused is willing to compound after paying due % as set by Hon Apex Court (again a questionable order of SC), then hon court need not pay much attention to refusal by complainant to not compound. Somewhere the ration of this order of SC, indicates this.

So if we read all the three points above which have some variance with each other, then your strategy may work to close the case (in many cases), certainly not to frustrate the case.

Above all:

I urge all the law experts to think and realize, that the Hon SC has made an error (or permitted the propagation of error)  in the proper interpretation of S.139 as far as presumption aspect is concerned (at least 8 sections of IPC and various central acts violated or gets compromised).

You talk of mens rea and all, I say it is so unfortunate and so erroneous that people are being asked to prove their innocence (fundamental presumption of innocence violated), one Hon court has ruled that Mens Rea is not applicable on S.138 ?? Another court says signature on the cheque of accused if admitted is the sufficient proof of execution of cheque??  (2 laws violated).

Example:

1. Signed Cheque of A is misplaced, and found by neighbor Y.  Now neighbor Y fills up some amount gets it dishnoroed and files a case stating that out of friendly loan, so and so cheque and date and so and so amount. A being an honest fellow admits that yes signature on the cheque is his but the cheque got misplaced....PERIOD....

A = Top Notch lawyer or SC Judge

(Can A defend himself ?  Y is a smart fellow did not make any technical mistake).

Contact me for the exact interpretation of S.139, only if you agree with present interpretation and fail to find any problem with present understanding).

@ Mr. Trivedi, 

As to your observation you might be correct.  But my observation is based upon the entirety of the facts disclosed so far in this platform.  I am viewing it by my experience of long 57 years court  practice and my earlier posts on  this query.are the out come of that experience.  So far I ascertained from the facts narrated in the subject query I reiterate once again that if the querist liquidate his dues relating to bounced cheques and take some other steps( hidden ) Criminal Court will bound down to recall the warrant issued against the querist and shall be compelled by law to dismiss the case as not maintainable I need add here that my professional fees is very high which will suit to the pocket of middle class people but if the querist engage me as his Consultant in this matter then I shall bang the Banker for their mischief..

My observation is based on the present status of law. Courts are not dismissing the complaint on its own due to Adalat Prasad ruling by SC. The accused has to move to the HC under S.482 CrPC.

I respect your experience, but please instead of thrashing the Bank, people like you must take up Matter with the court, that Banks are not supposed to extend the loan/credit on the strength of cheque and S.138, they have the collateral security, they should initiate the process to recover the money by suitable process and right granted to them on account of this collateral. Banks cannot use S.138 for bouncing of cheque, if collateral is lying with them. It is bl**dy nonsense to make a person face criminal trial while keeping on hold his collateral. No man can be prosecuted under criminal for his inability (that too after a long period) to pay, if he says that his collateral is lying with the Bank, and the Bank has the right under law to liquidate that.

On the part of courts, this is over-zealousness and misinterpretation of S.138/S.139 that around  50 Lacs cases are pending in the courts.

Hon SC/HC immediately thrashes executive/administration/secretary level officers for negligence and misinterpretation. What is SC doing for 50 Lacs of cheque bounce case, half of them would fail the applicability criteria under S.138. 

Do you realize that in every profession, there is parallel and concurrent support of seniors, experienced professionals (whether it is medicine, aviation, engineering, policy), but only in case of judiciary the young not so experienced Ld trial court magistrates first take the decision, however bad in law, then only the role of higher courts come. It cannot be said that these Ld magistrates do not make mistakes, mistakes are made by every professional at least in early days of his career. You know the cost of mistake by a magistrate under criminal trial.

Law under S.138 is perfect, absolutely right, court interpretation is hopelessly out of sync with law, the result : Accused is asked to prove his innocence, accuse is asked to rebut the liability even if complainant does not prove it.

THERE IS NO LAW WHICH GIVES PRESUMPTION ABOUT THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE LIABILITY, COMPLAINANT HAS TO PROVE IT FIRST. ONCE THE COMPLAINANT PROVES HE BECOMES THE HOLDER AND PRESUMPTION IS GIVEN TO HIM THAT CHEQUE WAS INDEED ISSUED FOR THIS LIABILITY ONLY. ACCUSED CANNOT SAY IT WAS GIFT CHEQUE OR LOST OR FOR SOME OTHER LIABILITY. NOW HE HAS TO DISPROVE.

This is the correct position of law and accused are helplessly suffering because the Hon courts are not following this.

Criminal cases are entirely depending upon the evidences.  At first the complainant discharge his burden for proving the fact by adducing evidences relating to his complaint  and the accused discharge his onus by adducing his evidences to rebut the criminality .  Then again by relying upon some other evidences direct or substantial the complainant discharge his onus to disprove the claim of the accused. Following such process the argument will be completed... 

DEAR MR. TRIVIDI

                               YOU HAVE STATED THAT " A " HAD LOST A SIGNED CHECK AND " Y " HAS FOUND IT AND FILLED UP SOME AMOUNT , PRESENTS IT , GETS IT RETURNED AND FILES A CHECK RETURN CASE ON " A " . YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IF "A " ADMITS THAT IT IS HIS SIGNATURE THEN " Y " WILL GET THE AMOUNT AND HE WILL WIN THE CASE  . I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU . YOU BEING A SENIOR ADVOCATE HAD NOT INTERPRETED SECTION 138 AS THE LAW STATES . (1) THE CHECK MUST BE FOR A LEGALLY VALID DEBT (2) THE CHECK MUST BE DRAWN BY THE DRAWER OF THE CHECK .IN YOUR CASE ONLY THE SIGNATURE IS THAT OF THE DRAWER . ALL OTHER ARE IN THE HAND WRITING OF A DIFFERENT PERSON . THAT PERSON DOES NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENT TO PROVE THAT HE HAD GIVEN A LOAN TO THE DRAWER OF THE CHECK. ALL AMOUNT SHOULD BE GIVEN BY CHECK OR DEMAND DRAFTS ONLY . IF HE SAYS THAT HE GAVE IN CASH THEN IN CROSS EXAMINATION HE WILL LAND IN TROUBLE . MOREOVER I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN IN THESE COLUMNS THAT A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABORATORY IS THERE IN HYDERABAD TO DETERMINE THE AGE OF THE INK AS WELL AS THE HAND WRITING . BUT AL THESE THE LOWER COURTS WILL NOT PERMIT . ONLY THE HIGH COURTS WILL DO THAT . A PERSON HAD WON A CASE IN THIS MANNER WHEN THE HIGH COURT SENT THE CHECK FOR EXPERT OPINION TO THE LABORATORY .  

        REGARDING INVOKING SECTION 482 THIS ACCUSED CANNOT DO THAT . THERE IS VERY CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE HIGH COURTS CAN INTERFERE UNDER SECTION 482 ONLY IF THERE IS GROSS INJUSTICE DONE TO HIM BY THE LOWER COURT . OTHERWISE THEY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE AND MUST ALLOW THE LOWER COURT TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL . THIS PERSON IS APPROACHING THIS FORUM AFTER ADMITTING EVERYTHING IN HIS MAILS WITH THE BANK AND IN HIS CONVERSATIONS . THERE IS GUIDELINES FOR THE BANK THAT ALL CONVERSATIONS MUST BE RECORDED. SO ON WHAT BASIS HE CAN APPROACH THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 . THERE IS A WARRANT PENDING AGAINST HIM . WITH ALL THIS HE CANNOT MOVE THE HIGH COURT . 

           ONE MATTER I CONCUR WITH YOU BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM. THE LOWER JUDICIARY IN ALMOST 90% OF THE CASES UNDER SECTION 138 SHOULD READ THE COMPLAINT , THE DOCUMENTS FILED AND WHAT IS STATED IN THE LAW AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGHER JUDICIARY . IF THEY DO LIKE THIS THEY CAN DISMISS ALMOST 90% OF THE CASES IN THE ADMISSION STAGE ITSELF . THERE WILL BE NO CASE PENDING UNDER SECTION 138 IF SUCH PRACTICE . THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WANTED TO REPEAL THIS ACT OF CHECK RETURN  IS BETWEEN 2 PERSONS AND IT IS THERE IS OWN TRANSACTION . WHY SHOULD THE COURTS WASTE THEIR TIME . THIS CHECK RETURN WAS BROUGHT IN BY OUR HONORABLE PRIME MINISTER SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH WHEN HE WAS THE FINANCE MINISTER . NOW HE WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE OLD REGIME . BUT THE ADVOCATES ASSOCIATIONS ARE AGAINST THIS . BECAUSE THIS IS THE MAJOR NUMBER OF CASES IN THE LOWER COURTS AND THE JUNIOR ADVOCATES WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR INCOME . ADVOCATES LIKE YOU MUST SUPPORT THIS CAUSE AND MAKE YOUR ASSOCIATIONS TO AGREE TO THAT .

           MY ADVICE TO THE PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES WHO IS WORKING THERE ON A H1B EMPLOYER VISA AND ON WHOM A CHECK RETURN CASE IS PENDING HERE IN INDIA IS TO " CLOSE THE CASE AT THE EARLIEST AND SECURE HIS JOB THERE ". - JOSEPH WILFRED - 11/02/2014 AT 20:36 HRS   

Wilfred,

please write in small letters, CAPITALS make a bad reading.

Unfortunate thing is, Mr Wilfred, our courts feel that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, presumption is drawn in favor of complainant and now it is upto accused to rebut that there was no debt or liability.

As per law it should be that :

1. Complainant reasonably proves the receipt and execution of cheque (or accused admits)

2. Complainant proves the entitlement, that is debt..

Once 1 and 2 above are done, then complainant becomes the holder as per S.8 of the NI Act, and he gets the presumption in his favor under S.139. Now accused must rebut it.

But right now what is happening is known to all the counsels, the Sr#2 is almost fully missing. This is not the problem with the law, this is the erroneous interpretation of law by courts.