Bearer cheque

You need evidence in court to prove your story.

Since you have given cheques from your bank account and same are bounced so you have to face criminal trial.

How ever there are many technical issues in such cases and any expert advocate who had contested cheque bounce cases can help you to come out of this problem.

You did no disclose the contents of Legal Notice issued to you before filing 138 ni.

What transaction was declared in 138 Complaint?? 

Possiblt your cheques of year 2012 // or older?? 

Thses are vital points to WIN or LOOSE   THE COURT CASE. 

Thanks for U R reply ir,

They got the cheques bounced in my friend's a/c & his father's a/c. They put in the case that i have taken a hand loan from them for 3 months. But i didnt repay after their repeated requests. Then I gave them cheques & asked them to deposit in bank. This is a cooked up story. I never asked them to deposit cheques. I gave those cheques when i took money 2 years back as security. I never asked them to deposit, i was just asking time to repay. I just want clarification whether the amounts drawn by Me on bearer cheques prove that i used that amount. If they gave it for my use they would have givn a crossed cheque. i just withdrew & gave cash at their residence when they were constructing their house as he was 70 years old man. Now his son is playing with me. Pls reply Me SIR.

The cheques were old or new will be relevant only after new typs oe cheques come in force.

Many accused remain in wrong concept that they had given secuiry cheque or blank cheque , it is your storiy and unless you can produce credible eveidence it has no value .

Yes there may be other technicak issues like mistake in issue of notice or factual mistakes in pleading which can be used only though an expert advocate.

security cheques ideally dnt fall under 138 NI prosecution which supreme court had told in last 5-6 months...

Check with a 138 expert, u shud come out easily.....

Dear author,

I delete my comments... Regret any inconvenience.

There is no such decison of SUPREME COURT  about securty cheque but it was only of two benches of HIGH COURT , there are also when the complainant admitted in cross that the cheques were security cheque.

In nomral course it is not possible to get such admission.

Now very recent SC ciations has covered all cheques which are bounced due whatever reason will attract NI 138 but only exceptions will be that accused should be able to rebut the presumption of LEGAL LIABILITY.

Thank u Laxminarayan

Thanks Miss. Divya, Mr. Maru, Mr. Shastry & Mr. Laxminarayana for U R Valid reasoning & feedback. Coming to U R point Mr. Shastry. I have used cheques with serial numbers prior to & after the serial number cheques given to the complainant. And those cheques got cleared almost 15-18 months back. I have also taken a new cheque book from the bank after giving them cheques.

So, pls give me some more information if possible on this point on how should I use this in my favour.

Advise & suggestions are welcome from all the members & my dear friends here.

Thanking U All in advance ...............

Regards,

Dear Rajat, 

Inform your Advocate as to how he can use this information in your written statement. Is there any chance of countering Complainants version that you gave them the cheques recently after taking the hand loan 3 months back.

The many other tactics for winning any cheque bounce case other than that it was blank or security cheque. THERE ARE MANY OTHER TECHNICAL ISSUES AND MISTAKES WHICH CAN BE EXPLOITED BY THE ACCUSED VERY EASILY AND CAN WIN ANY CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE.

Please refer the portion of recent SC  case law refered above-

New Delhi; November 27, 2012- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This Court has in the decisions referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the drawers of the cheques which would inevitably result in the dishonour of the cheque issued by them.

would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. 

such a dishonour in order to qualify for prosecution under Section 138 shall have to be preceded by a statutory notice where the drawer is called upon and has the opportunity to arrange the payment of the amount covered by the cheque.

 It is only when the drawer despite receipt of such a notice and despite the opportunity to make the payment within the time stipulated under the statute does not pay the amount that the dishonour would be considered a dishonour constituting an offence, hence punishable.

Mr Rajat,

1. if the amount is drawn by you on uncrossed cheque with your name on it, will be construed as your withdrawal.

2. If the amount is drawn by you on a self cheque (even with your signature on back), it cannot be assumed that it was for you.

Coming to your cheque, wherein you contend that the same series cheques were cleared 18 months ago, even the prior serial number as well as post serial numbers. And on top of that the same were used by complainant as well, this is a good circumstantial evidence (your bank statement showing these details) to indicate that the cheque was issued to you long back. Now the point is if it was a PDC (fully filled up) and the loan amount was existing on that day, then it may not help much, but if it was blank cheque in any sense, and complainant has deposed falsely that cheque was issued recently, then you stand a very good chance. Please give somewhat more information about complainant version and cheque when you issued.

Thanks Mr. Maru & Mr. Trivedi for U R Feedback.

Mr. Maru, can U give me the total details of the SC case law refered by U. Like case number etc. And coming to My Case they have sent Me the notices after the cheque bounced. they didn't sent my any notices before presenting the cheques in the bank. Does this help Me, based on the SC case law mentioned by U above.

Mr. Trivedi the case details are My friend bounced the two cheques in his a/c & his father's a/c. Those 2 cheques were given by my as security while taking loan from him. I just signed on them ( date, name, amount coloumns are left blank ). They don't even have any supporting documnet for it. As a matter of fact I dont have any financial relation with his father. They put the case that I have taken hand loan from him with a promise that I will repay withing 3 months, After three months when I didn't repay them. They asked Me several times, but I postponed the matter with some or the other reason. After repeated requests I neither paid them nor met them and started avoiding them. then I fine day I gave him the cheque and asked to deposit, which they did but it got bounced due to insufficient funds. they even sent notices by their advocates after the cheque dishonour, but I didn't respond. So, they took the matter to ther court. He also filed a case with his father as complainant. He cut, copied & pasted the entire contents of his case to his father's case. Just changed dates & figures.

These are the contents of the case Mr. Trivedi. If U need any further information, I'll be pleased to provide U with those details. Pls advise Me how to go about it basing on the above details .............

The only problem in your case is that you did not respond to their notice.

The biggest problem in their case is that they filed two cases (son & father), even though the cheque series is same and cheques were blank with them.

In all likelyhood these cheques would have been filled up by them only. Let the process start, hire the local advocate, meanwhile please do following exercise:

1. Get the account statement of cheque issue period from your bank

2. Search for your counterfoil part of the cheque, these cheques amount space must be blank.

3. Go to his bank (make contacts and attempt) and try to get the photocopy of deposit slip (to start  with) just to confirm if the handwriting on the cheque is same as 

that in deposit slip. Most likely complainant would say that you gave him fully filled up cheque, but if the handwriting on the depsit slip matches with the writing on the cheque, conclusion is straightforward.