Evidence to prove undated cheque

I would like to bring in to the notice of members the following important provisions under the NI Act.

Special Rules Of Evidence.

Section 118 of NI  Act 

Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.   118 (b) AS TO DATE--that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made on such date;

46. Delivery. The making, acceptance or indorsement of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is completed by delivery, actual or constructive. As between parties standing in immediate relation, delivery to be effectual must be made by the party making, accepting or indorsing the instrument, or by a person authorized by him in that behalf. As between such parties and any holder of the instrument other than a holder in due course, it may be shown that the instrument was delivered conditionally or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring absolutely the property therein. A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable to bearer is negotiable by the delivery thereof. A promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable to order is negotiable by the holder by indorsement and delivery thereof.

1. In your case the complainant has admitted that the cheque was received in Aug 2011.

2. Cheque is not stale if the date of deposit is with validity period (at that time 6 months)

But S.138 states

(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(Drawn = Making as per S.46)

1. Now if the complainant has stated that he filled the date, then in absence of your consent you would have been safe

2. But complainant has stated that it was PDC, hon Apex Court has ruled that a PDC becomes a cheque on the date put on it, so that does not help you much.

Under such circumstances you have to strongly take up the matter under S.46 and S.138 above..

1. It was a conditional security cheque given without date on it.

2. See if the date is written with different ink.

Also please check if you have..

1. issued any other cheque after this. This will re affirm that it was a security cheque.

2. why would you issue a PDC of around 9 months ?? Any written matter ??

Such theories do not work in actual court room.

Those who do actually conduct cases for cheque bounce will know that it is sure conviction.

Please do not get discouraged by the statements of few people, no court of law can deviate from the statue. Such people will find fault in the notices like name not fully written, postal endorsement is not lawful, encourage drawer not to reply to notice etc and succeed in taking stays, no doubt, but the very same people object to when lawful defense is pointed out. These people when confronted come to site with various new profiles and funny names and guarantee success in every cheque bounce cases. Without naming anyone,  but I am sorry to say no specialist doctor will tell his patient before the diagnosis and even during treatment that 100% treatment is guaraneetd, he can assuage the feeling of patient thats a different thing, one will find such guarantees only on roadside quakes display boards.

In your case please note that cheque drawn date is the date on which cheque is delivered not when it is put up by possessor without consent (PDC is different aspect altogether). S.118 gives rebuttable presumption on date but no one can stop you from proving that the date was put up by possessor. Complainant has admitted in your case that he received the cheque much before, he has stated that it was PDC. If the date is written in different ink and hand writing that is good enough defense to probablise the case in your favor. I am not suggesting that this is full defense, please consider all the defenses available to you.

Mere statement that fight from day one, you can win any case, find silly faults in complainant case, is Ok  and should be left at that. I feel the honest drawer must be saved, a dishonest drawer would need all kind of silly defenses to prolong the clutches of law. Spending years on unnecessary  stays does not do any good to honest drawer, it only increases pain and harassment. Our judges of High Court and Supreme Court are people of knowledge, they understand the evidentiary value of presumption under S.139, they understand the implication of conviction of innocent person. In cheque bounce cases technical defenses are important because many a times it becomes difficult to prove the positive innocense of accused and hence the case can be probablised by accused, this aspect has been observed and ruled by honorable SC.

I challenge all such people to come forward and give a single example when they won on some apparently silly looking ground, like name not fully written, genuine postal endorsement is not admitted by court, non reply of notice ever helping the accused. Only delay, no positive results.

Legal field is not for CHALLANGES. 

You are finding faults with SUPREME COURT , HIGH COURT Judgements.

So let us know if you have won or EVEN CODUCTED  any case as per your theories.

Laxminarain:

By the way you have not answered : How SC can set aside S.315 of CrPC ? One of your friends has also not yet answered : How S.482 is taken away by SC from High Courts ?

You seem to take vacation when confronted with tough questions. Thankfully you have not changed your profile name. Please do not misguide the people that Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar is a different person then Sachin R Tendulkar. If any one has won the case based on above difference in notice, then that Ld Magistrate will be asked to change his profession. That was my challenge to your friend.

1) First of all it  IS your basic DISHONESTY  that you are using filthy lannguage AND ABUSING others  on a public webside.

2) You are throwing challanges whithout declaring you address  but behind veil and specs.

IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF CONDUCTING ANY CASE AS PER  your VIEWS PLEASE GIVE DETAILS SO THAT EVERY BODY WILL BENEFIT.

It is basic dishonesty and unethical on the part of a lawyer to tell the public in forum that any cheque bounce case can be won. It is the insult to our legislature and judicial system. 

Anyway answer first: How SC can take away S.315 of CrPC..

Legally you are not capable of finding any fault with my postings. The day you point it out, I will admit and stop posting.

If, date on cheque, amount and name of drawer is not in handwriting of issuer of cheque, Burden of proof that cheque was given by accused on date mentioned on bounced cheque, lies upon complainant or Accused?

Is this not sufficient proof that date, name of drawer, amount is not in handwriting of accused that cheque was given blank cheque?

Further account closed in 2008, complaint claims cheque was given in 2010, Burden of proff lies with accused or complaint to prove that cheque was given in 2010