That point was stressed even in oral arguments still the conviction. That is what I do not understand the judgement says that there were transactions after the check issue date and hence it is legally enforceable date on date of presentment of cheque without thee complainant proving with cogent evidence that there was legally enforceable debt after the cheque date when the same was rebutted by the accused with evidence of non legally enforceable agreement and also elicited from the complainant in his cross.
One more thing is even if the cheque amount is 29.50 Lacs and conviction. The sentence awarded is SI one year and Rs. 10,000 fine. Now tell me has the holder of the cheque got justice or the accused has got justice. I did not understand the judgement if he felt that there was a cheque and legally enforceable debt why was there no compensation awarded to atleast compensate the complainant.
Sometimes we have a law made like the 138 NI act where the correct techinicalities are not spelt out even by the supreme court of india in various judgements. Preponderance of probabilities and presumptions of legally enforceable debt as stated by the supreme court is a very grey area but whereas the actual act is very technical in nature. This confuses everybody inclusive of judges in lower court. Hence 138 is a bailable offence. But still the emotional upheaval of the accused / complainant in various cases cannot be measured in such cases.
recovery suits are still the best way for money recovery and we know it will take time to get judgements and in 138 another set of new fast track courts are creating more menace by giving non technical judgements.
We will let you know the status of the appeal. The sentence has been suspended pending appeal as of now.