Pl tell, Pl contact, pl send details.... keep advertsing, but please do not mislead accused that "ALL THE CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES CAN BE WON".
Write more than those 5-10 lines and if you all have some idea of proper defense please come forward and state, instead of every time writing, this will not work, that will not work, fight boldly... Talk like a counsel with valid arguments..... Although I do not criticise SC/HC orders but even to do so require sound knowledge of law which you people lack.
I give you a challenge except Kerala high Court none of the HCs have understood the proper meaning of S.139 (I have not seen any order)
1. The presumption under S.139 is given to holder, not to possessor. The word "possessor" is used 3-4 times in NI act and used differently from Holder. The word Holder is defined in NI Act. A person who possesses the cheque for valid consideration.
2. There is no presumption for the amount, the presumption is only with respect to liability type. Drawer cannot say that he gave the cheque as Gift, for some other liability away from what complainant says, it has to be proved.
3. The amount has to be proved by complainant to get the benefit of presumption.
4. There is no law that mere signature on the cheque is execution of the cheque, and admitting the signature will give the presumption under S.139.
5. There is no direct inapplicability of men rea, that means criminal intent must be there, but this issue has been not discussed in detail barring few side remarks in one or two orders.
How many cases you have won on such grounds ? Do not advise your clients not to respond to notice, they must but with care. And also Sachin R Tendulkar is same as S R Tendulkar, S.315 CrPC cannot be set aside by SC, and that SC Dychem order is very good for accused not bad as you guys have made out.