Cheque dishonour
C K Mallik
(Querist) 04 June 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear
We had given two cheques to the property owner in my village(9 lacs to the brother and 50000 to the sister).
But due to some reason, we decided not to purchase the land just after 2 days.
then we blocked the cheque.
Now both the brother and sister put a cheque dishonor case in my name.
( They mentioned the reason as I have borrowed money from them and not returning).
Now the case in being fight in provision of 205. we also lost the removal of section -138( as we had blocked the cheque and we had the money in the bank).
Please guide me, I am ready to pay the amount if I lost the case....point is that I do not want to go to the jail( for society issues).
Please guide me....Can I win the case?
Or can I avoid to going to jail?
Regards
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 04 June 2013
If they can not prove that you owed them money for which cheque was drawn, you would be acquitted.
You have merit in your case. Engage a good lawyer who handle such type of cases.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 June 2013
burden of proof is on complainant to show that cheque was in discharge of debt due and payable . the complainant has stated that loan was advanced and you have issued cheque in repayment of loan . complainant has to prove that loan was given to you .
you have good case on merits
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 04 June 2013
Don't worry.
Case is in your favour, and if properly defended, no question of your going to jail.
No prudent man will take loan of Rs. 9 Lah in cash from brother, and another loan of 50,000/- from sister and at no interest!!
Brother need to show from where he gave you cash??
I Tax return must show the transactions.
Orders are appeal able, and truth will come out.
YOU DEFEND IT.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 04 June 2013
The cheque bounce law is a technical law and guilt of accused is presumed unless REBUTTED.
It is misconception the burden is on complainant but it is reverse that accused has to prove that there was no legal liability.
DN BENCH OF SC IN 2010
The appellant-accused had raised the defence that the
cheque in question was a blank cheque bearing his signature which had been lost and that it had come into the hands of the complainant who had then tried to misuse it.
The accused’s case was that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability between the parties since he had not asked for a hand loan as alleged by the complainant.
Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.
16. In conclusion, we find no reason to interfere with the final order of the High Court which recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant.
SO ACCUSED MUST BE ALERT FROM DAY ONE AND SHOULD USE EXPERT DEFENSE SERVICES AND SHOULD NOT REMAIN IN OVER CONFIDENCE.
SINCE AS A ROUTINE ACCUSED ARE BEING CONVICTED ON SUCH UN REALISTIC DEFENSE AT MOST OF THE COURTS.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 05 June 2013
ATTENTION CHEQUE BOUNCE LITIGANTS.
1) While it is not good news for DEFENSE advocates who win the cheque bounce cases for the accused whatever may be the facts and circumstances.
2) BUT ACCUSED OF CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES- GOOD NEWS FOR ALL OF YOU.
A) Govt has decided to send all cheque bounce cases for arbitration.
B) So all your problems of NBW, Jail terms will be over.
C) Even after award the payment may be made in parts but with interest.
3) ALSO GOOD FOR COMPLAINANTS-
A) The awards will be like civil decree so recovery may be done but on a longer time frame.
B) As of now payments were received in small no of cases. WHILE others cases are either dismissed, goes on appeal or accused goes to jail.
HOWEVER IT MAY TAKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS TIME TO COME TO GROUND LEVEL. SO PLAN YOUR STRATAGIES ACCORDINGLY.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 05 June 2013
thanks for the update .
Ajeet
(Expert) 05 June 2013
AS PER SEC. 139 OF NI ACT :It shall be presumed, unless the Contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability].
SO YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THIS WAS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND NOT FOR DEBT I.E HOLDER OF CHEQUE WAS NOT HOLDER IN DUE COURSE ANY AGREEMENT OR EVIDENCE (ANY PERSON BEFORE LAND SALE AGREMENT WILL MADE OR ANY THING THAT MAY TURN ONUS OF PROOF ON ANOTHER PART.DON'T PANIC AND PUT UR KNEES DOWN AGAINST WRONG DOWERS IF YOU ARE RIGHT CUNSULT A GOOD LAWYER U WILL WIN TRUTH PREVAILS
C K Mallik
(Querist) 06 June 2013
Actually we were about to purchase two plot from them.One plot of Rs 7.5 Lacs we purchased two days before of these cheque case.After purchasing their causins came to our house and told us that this particular plots are disputed and belongs to them.They also filed a case on this plot against their causin. We are facing that case also as witness.Still we are not getting possesion of that plot.
So within hours we decided not to purchase the another plot and blocked the cheque.
Ajeet
(Expert) 06 June 2013
IT WILL BE IN YOUR FAVOUR THERE MIGHT BE SO MANY THING THAT WHEN YOU CONSULT A GOOD LAWYER WILL BRING CASE IN YOUR FAVOUR YOU HAVE CHANCE TO WIN
