Wrong Cheque Number, Wrong Amount In Plea Strikes At 'Root' Of Fair Trial: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case

The Calcutta High Court has held that a criminal trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained where the accused was asked to answer a completely different cheque transaction at the stage of recording the plea under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Holding that such a defect strikes at the root of a fair trial, the Court set aside the six-month jail sentence imposed on the accused while maintaining the direction to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to the complainant, noting that the amount had already been deposited.Justice Uday Kumar observed that compelling an accused to plead to a cheque of ₹5 lakh while ultimately convicting him in relation to a different cheque of ₹1.5 lakh amounted to a "structural defect" that could not be treated as a mere curable irregularity."The petitioner was legally called upon to defend himself against a five-lakh rupee transaction, but he was ultimately tried and convicted for a one-and-a-half-lakh rupee transaction," the Court said.The case arose from a complaint filed by Chandana Pal, who alleged that she had advanced a friendly loan of ₹1.5 lakh to the accused, chartered accountant Sudipta Ghosh, in May 2003. To discharge the liability, Ghosh allegedly issued a cheque dated March 12, 2006, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. After the statutory notice went unanswered, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment besides directing payment of ₹3 lakh compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC. The conviction was affirmed in appeal, prompting the present revision.Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the trial stood vitiated because the particulars of the offence read over to him under Section 251 CrPC referred to an entirely different cheque bearing another number and an amount of ₹5 lakh. It was further argued that the complainant had failed to establish her financial capacity to advance the loan, having admitted in cross-examination that she was unemployed and had received the money from her father, who was never examined as a witness.Rejecting the respondent's submission that the discrepancy was a mere typographical error curable under Section 465 CrPC, the Court held that compliance with Section 251 CrPC is not an empty formality but the foundation of a fair summons trial."It serves as a vital statutory surrogate for a formal charge. Its overarching purpose is to explicitly apprise the accused of the precise allegations and facts levelled against him, so that he may consciously shape and prepare his defence," the Court observed.The Court found that the plea recorded before the Magistrate mentioned Cheque No. 901536 for ₹5 lakh, whereas the complaint related to Cheque No. 169190 for ₹1.5 lakh. Such a mismatch, it held, prejudiced the accused from the very inception and invalidated the trial.On the issue of financial capacity, the Court reiterated that although admission of the signature on the cheque attracts the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption is rebuttable. Referring to the complainant's admission that the loan amount had been provided by her father, coupled with the absence of any evidence from him or documentary proof of the source of funds, the Court held that there was a significant evidentiary gap. It also noted that this circumstance was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.However, the Court rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding limitation and service of the statutory notice. It held that issuance of the signed cheque within three years of the loan amounted to a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, thereby extending the limitation period. It further held that service of the demand notice was duly presumed as it had been delivered at the petitioner's office address.While observing that the normal consequence of such a procedural defect would have been a remand for a fresh trial, the Court declined to do so considering that the litigation had remained pending since 2006. It noted that pursuant to an interim order passed in 2022, the petitioner had already deposited ₹3 lakh before the trial court, fully satisfying the compensation awarded to the complainant.Holding that Section 138 is primarily intended to secure financial restitution, the Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by directing imprisonment after two decades when the complainant's monetary claim already stood satisfied.Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the revision, set aside the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment, affirmed the compensation of ₹3 lakh, permitted the complainant to withdraw the deposited amount and discharged the petitioner from his bail bonds.Case Title: Sudipta Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Anr., CRR 3434 of 2022.Click here to...

Wrong Cheque Number, Wrong Amount In Plea Strikes At 'Root' Of Fair Trial: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Wrong Cheque Number, Wrong Amount In Plea Strikes At 'Root' Of Fair Trial: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers