Cheque Bounce, Section 138

Y Singh N Rajput (Querist) 26 October 2010 This query is : Resolved
A business associates say "A" managed pilferage of signed blank chequebook of his associate "B". "A" purchased steel wire rods from the stockyard of a public undertaking. On dispute wih "B" on some other ground, "A" fraudulently raised many bills on "B", showing the purchase invoice quanities truck wise. But the sale bill dates differ with purchase invoice dates and also the truck numbers are also different then the trucks in which materials were purcahsed. that is the sale bills are also shown as if it were sale from "A"s godown.

"A" has not produced weigh bride slips of the sold materials and also did not submit the purchased invoices.

It can be regarded as a bill to bill sale. ie.,quantities, dates of sale/purchase and truck number should be same for purchase and sale. But "A" has shown it as ex godown sale and on cross also confirmed it be x-godown sale on, ie.,sale on different dates and different trucks. In this type of sale quantiy truck-wise would never match with purchase quanities truck-wise.

Later "A" gets cheques bounced and filed a number of cases under section 138.

Please let me know chances of success of "A" in these suits.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 26 October 2010
If A could prove that A drew those cheques in discharge of debt due to A then only he could succeed. The chances in court are always subject to proof.

Y Singh N Rajput (Querist) 26 October 2010
I agree that A has to prove about his supply.

Please note-

A claims his legal dues on account of the bills as explained. The bills are bogus. A truck if weighed at a different weigh-bride would give different measurement of weight. Ex-godown sale would never match bill to bill sale. The onus shifts to A to prove that bills are not bogus. He is bound to produce weighing slips of said delivery to B, stock register and purchase invoices.

Please say whether I am right in my analysis or wrong?