Srinagar: A city court sent a person to one year imprisonment besides imposing on him financial penalty for issuing a cheque to a borrower which bounced for insufficient funds in his bank account.
Disposing of the cheque bounce case instituted on June 27, 2016, the Court of City Judge, presided over by Abdul Bari convicted one M Shoiab Malik S/o Dr Nazir Ahmad Malik of Nowshera Srinagar for the commission of the said offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The man had taken a loan of Rs three lakhs from Fayaz Ahmad Wani, a former General Manager of State Industrial Corporation (SIDCO). Shoiab claimed that Wani was his sleeping business partner.
Judge Bari after hearing the counsels of the parties and perusing the documents sentenced the accused “to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year” It also imposed upon him “to pay cheque amount of Rs 3 Lacs along with 6% interest from the date of issuance of cheque till date of judgment which culminated to Rs 1,62,000/- total fine of Rs 4,62,000/- shall be paid by the accused and same shall be paid to the complainant within period of one month of expiry of period prescribed for appeal, or its disposal, if any”.
Accused was forwarded to the Superintendent Central Jail Srinagar to serve his sentence.
The complainant claimed to had advanced an amount of Rs. 10.00 Lacs (Rs. Ten Lacs) to the accused under two bank transfers of Rs. 5.00 Lacs each on 15.04.2015 and 20.04.2015 in the name of his M/s Acura Arts maintained with Canara Bank.
In the meantime the accused brought one person named Reyaz Ahmad Bazaz and issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 5.00 Lacs in Fayaz’s name. He presented this cheque before J&K Bank branch Poloview but the accused has no sufficient funds in his account. A separate complaint has been against Reyaz Ahmad Bazaz also.
Being satisfied of the sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused the court issued process against the accused and on 16.05.2017 the accused caused his appearance in person and through counsel.
Offence being bailable in nature the accused was admitted to bail and was directed to furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs 20,000.
The complainant said that all the cheques were post dated. Then he presented all these cheques in the bank for the payment but there was no money in the account of the accused and these cheques got bounced.
He however stated that the bank did not issue the Memo with regard to other cheques.
He placed on record only one Bank Memo for a cheque for an amount of Rs 3,00000, said the counsel of the accused. The demand notice dated 30 05-2016 demanding a sum of Rs 10 Lakh from accused is frivolous he said.
The court held that the accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption of law by leading any cogent and clinching evidence.
“Therefore, in view of the testimonies on record and in view of presumption of Section 139 N.I Act, it has been proved that cheque in question was issued by accused in discharge of his debt of Rs. 300000/- payable to the complainant”, it said.
It also said “the cheque was returned unpaid due to reason insufficient funds or it exceeds the amount to be paid from that account…. and that a demand notice for the payment has been made by the complainant within 30 days of receipt of information of bank”.
“It has been proved by the complainant beyond doubt that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of his liabilities and same was got dishonored on its presentation due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and accused failed to make the payment of the cheque after receiving the demand notice within 15 days. That satisfies all the ingredients of offence punishable under S. 138 of NI Act rendering accused guilty for commission of that offence” recorded the court.
