Dismissed¶46

Sucha Singh v. Rp Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2025CRM-A/309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; Section 139 NI Act; presumption under S.139 rebutted; statutory notice beyond 30 days; date of dishonour 07.09.2007 vs 31.12.2007; dishonour of cheque; leave to appeal against acquittal; CRM-A; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; travel agent; joint liability; partnership not proved; complainant credibility; acquittal upheld; Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

What did the court decide?

CW2-B.K. Atwal, Special Assistant, Union Bank, testified that the cheques were in fact returned unpaid to the complainant on 07.09.2007 and that the stamp indicating dishonor on 31.12.2007 was inadvertently affixed and incorrect; accordingly, the legal notice issued on 15.01.2008 was clearly beyond the 30-day statutory period, rendering the complaint non-maintainable. ¶39

Sucha Singh Vs Rp Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused under Section 138 NI Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur suffers from any infirmity warranting interference in this leave to appeal. +2 more

¶28

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference; the learned Trial Court carefully appreciated the evidence and rightly concluded that the complainant failed to prove the basic ingredients required to attract Section 138 NI Act, and the appeal stands dismissed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

¶39

Key takeaways

Mere issuance of a cheque, even where the signature is not disputed, does not ipso facto raise a presumption of legal liability; in view of the contradictions in the complainant's account and the absence of cogent evidence that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 NI Act stands rebutted.ratio¶43
In cross-examination the complainant admitted that the amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid to Bikram Singh and not directly to the respondent-accused R.P. Singh; no credible documentary evidence proved the alleged partnership or joint liability, and the complainant's failure to recall the date of cheque presentation or issuance of the legal notice cast serious doubt on his credibility.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Leave to appeal by the complainant against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act — DISMISSED. Complainant allegedly paid Rs.4 lakhs to the respondent-accused, a private travel agent, who issued two cheques (Nos. 042366 and 042368) of Rs.1 lakh each dated 23.08.2007 on Oriental Bank of Commerce; cheques returned unpaid with remark 'TODAY'S OPENING BALANCE INSUFFICIENT'; legal notice dated 15.01.2008. Bank witness CW2-B.K. Atwal (Union Bank) proved the cheques were in fact returned unpaid on 07.09.2007 and the 31.12.2007 dishonour stamp was inadvertently affixed; the notice was therefore beyond the 30-day statutory period, vitiating the entire complaint. The complainant admitted in cross-examination that the Rs.4 lakhs was paid to Bikram Singh and not to R.P. Singh; no credible documentary evidence of partnership or joint liability; mere issuance of a cheque does not ipso facto raise a presumption of legal liability and the presumption under Section 139 NI Act stood rebutted. No infirmity found in the impugned acquittal; acquittal upheld.

¶1

132. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-A-309-MA-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2025

¶3

Sucha Sing h .... Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

R.P. Singh .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶7

Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocat e , for the applicant.

¶8

¶9

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CRM-6828-2014

¶11

Application is allowed, as pra y ed for.

¶12

Annexures A-1 and A-2 are ta k en on record subject to all jus t

¶13

exceptions.

¶14

CRM-A-309-MA-2014

¶15

The instant leave to appeal ha s been preferred by the applican t (hereinafter referred to as the complai n ant) against the judgment o f acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magist r ate Ist Class, Phillaur, whereb y the respon d ent-accused was acquitted of t h e offence under Section 138 o f the Negoti a ble Instruments Act, 1881 (h e reinafter referred to as the N I Act).

¶16

The case of the complainant in brief may be noticed as thus: (i) The complainant, a pro s pective traveller, allegedly pai d an amount of Rs.4 lakhs to the respondent-accused, a

¶17

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-A-309-MA-2014 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

private travel agent, for arranging travel abroad. In purported discharge of the liability arising from this transaction, the respondent-accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.042366, 042368, each for Rs.1 lakh, dated 23.08.2007, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.M.T. Public School, Jalandhar Bye Pass Chowk, Ludhiana;

¶20

(ii) These cheques were allegedly presented for encashment and were returned unpaid with the remarks “ TODAY’S OPENING BALANCE INSUFFICIENT” . A legal notice dated 15.01.2008 was subsequently issued by the complainant demanding payment within the statutory period. Upon failure of the accused to make good the amount, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed.

¶21

(iii) The learned Trial Court, after recording evidence and evaluating the material on record, acquitted the respondent-accused. The Court held that the complainant failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt and found multiple discrepancies in the case of the complainant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent-accused despite the fact that the issuance of cheques and the signatures thereon were not denied by the accused. It was further argued that the cheques were issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the accused operated a Travel Agency along with Bikram

¶23

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-A-309-MA-2014 (O&M) - 3 -

¶25

Singh and Ajay Kumar. The payment of Rs.4 lakhs was made to all three of them, including the respondent-accused, and hence, the liability was joint.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the Trial Court placed undue emphasis on the statement of the complainant during cross-examination, wherein he mentioned that the amount was given to Bikram Singh, and incorrectly concluded that there was no liability on the part of the respondent-accused. It was argued that the complainant had consistently stated that the accused was jointly responsible, and this aspect was overlooked.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶28

This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference.

¶29

To establish an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the complainant must prove the following ingredients:-

¶30

(i) The cheque was drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him;

¶31

(ii) The cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or liability;

¶32

(iii) The cheque was presented to the Bank within the period of its validity;

¶33

(iv) The cheque was returned unpaid by the Bank;

¶34

(v) A legal notice demanding payment was issued to the drawer within 30 days of the receipt of information regarding dishonor;

¶35

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-A-309-MA-2014 (O&M) - 4 -

¶37

(vi) The drawer failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving such notice.

¶38

In the present case, a critical deficiency arises with respect to the time lines mandated under Section 138 of NI Act. The complainant claimed that the cheques were returned dishonored on 31.12.2007, and based on this, issued the statutory notice on 15.01.2008, however, the evidence on record contradicts this assertion.

¶39

CW2-B.K. Atwal, Special Assistant, Union Bank, categorically testified that the cheques were in fact returned unpaid to the complainant on 07.09.2007. He further deposed that the stamp indicating dishonor on 31.12.2007 was inadvertently affixed and was incorrect. He identified an entry in Ex.CW2/A, dated 07.09.2007, bearing the signatures of the complainant acknowledging receipt of the dishonoured cheques. Thus, the legal notice issued on 15.01.2008 was clearly beyond 30 days statutory period, rendering the complaint non-maintainable.

¶40

Further, the testimony of the complainant also failed to inspire confidence. During cross-examination, he admitted that the amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid to Bikram Singh and not directly to the respondent-accused, R.P. Singh. While he later tried to link R.P.Singh as a partner in the Travel Agency, no credible documentary evidence was produced to prove such a partnership or joint liability. Moreover, the complainant failed to recall even the date of cheque presentation or of issuance of the legal notice, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of his version.

¶41

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-A-309-MA-2014 (O&M) - 5 -

¶43

Another factual aspect is that although the accused did not dispute his signature on the cheques, mere issuance of a cheque does not ipso facto raise a presumption of legal liability. In view of the contradictions in the account of the complainant and absence of cogent evidence showing that the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act stands rebutted.

¶44

The Court, therefore, finds no merit in the contentions raised by the complainant. The learned Trial Court has carefully appreciated the evidence on record and rightly concluded that the complainant failed to prove the basic ingredients required to attract Section 138 of NI Act.

¶45

The statutory notice, having been beyond the permissible time limit, vitiates the entire complaint. Furthermore, the absence of a proven legal liability on the part of the respondent-accused coupled with the material discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant further weakens the case.

¶46

Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶47

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 02, 2025 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶48

SANJEEV KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sucha Singh v. Rp Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sucha Singh v. Rp Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manpreet Singh Alias Mani Vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy Vs State of Punjab

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Hind Furniture Vs Shree Markendeshwar Education Trust & Anr.

M/S Hind Furniture Vs Shree Markendeshwar Education Trust & Anr.