Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Curious Sam (Self)     08 December 2013

138 cheque bounce case based on a friendly (cash) loan

Here are the facts of  a case:

a) a close relative of mine has stolen a very old blank but signed cheque, bank account dormant for 10 years, that was signed 12 years back by me.

b) after obtaining the cheque  illegally, he began to blackmail me for money.

c) I did not immediately go to the police because of family prestige and thought elders in the family can resolve the matter internally to our family.

d) The idiot filed a cheque bounce case against me for 10 lakhs, ignoring the family prestige in our mohallah.

    He is the sour apple in our family.

e)To give validity to his case, he claims that he gave me a "friendly loan" of Rs. 10 lakhs about 2 years back and I gave him a postdated cheque.  Name, date  and amount on the cheque have been filled out by him, not by me.

f)No paperwork or IOU exists for the so imagined friendly loan (cash, gold etc:) exists anywhere and we never conducted any business transaction or ever exchanged any cheques.  The idiot never paid one naya paisa in income taxes until today. He has not supplied any evidence of the huge amount of Rs 10 lakhs being loaned out to me.  No cheque, no proof of bank transfer, nothing at all.

Can you please quote cases in higher courts where it was established that unaccounted black money loan does not translate into a legal liability.  It seems that the section 138 was incorporated to encourage more transactions by cheque so black money flow could be halted in the economy.  But, what if the imaginary loan which cannot be established is further imagined to be cash? I have filed a FIR for the stolen cheque on receiving the cheque bounce notice.



Learning

 6 Replies

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     08 December 2013

dear querist for case laws you sholud contact a lawyer personally. as per you information you will be win this case, at the time od Defence evidence file an application for handwriting expert opinion and age of signature. it will be cleared. feel free to call

Yadanand Legal help (maintenance divorce remarriage = yourscrew@gmail.com)     08 December 2013

All cheques cases can be won easily if proper defense is taken.

 

In your case if you admit the cheque was yours you had signed it than all other defenses will be negated.

 

There is implied authority to the holder of the instrument that you had agreed or given permission to fill in details.

 

There are many other good and proper defenses available such as =

 

a) Capacity to loan such big amount.  b) Previous transactions among the parties and so many others which can be detailed after going through the records.

Curious Sam (Self)     09 December 2013

I just read :

ordinarily in terms of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act,

any advance taken by way of any loan of more than Rs. 20,000/- was to be made by way of an

account payee cheque only.

Sidharth Arora (EXPERT/ADVOCATE )     09 December 2013

Most of your actions like filing an FIR after the cheque bounce notice,your allegation of Black money etc. can be interpreted as afterthought in the court.Better consult a lawyer.Your case may fall flat on the face otherwise SIDHARTH ARORA 9560601768

Yadanand Legal help (maintenance divorce remarriage = yourscrew@gmail.com)     09 December 2013

Yes Mr Sidharth.

 

Advocates who actually conduct the cases in the court can only know the real situation and what happens on such lousy defense.

 

Many who just read the news and give advice do more harm to the cause of accused to come out.

 

Section 269 of IT act is not crime. It provides for penalty but it does not mean the transaction was illegal.

 

Accused in cheque bounce cases should build solid defense for which there are many opportunities.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register