Srinagar: A Srinagar court has convicted one Bashir Ahmad Bujal in a cheque dishonour case directing him to pay Rs 93 lakh, and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment.
The judgment was delivered by Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge Srinagar, Junaid Imtiaz Mir, in a complaint filed by Naseer Ahmad Ratta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the judgment, Ratta and Bujal had been involved in the purchase and sale of land and properties for several years.
The complainant alleged that following a settlement of accounts between them, ₹46.50 lakh became payable to him.
To discharge the alleged liability, Bujal issued a cheque bearing number 563644 for ₹46.50 lakh, drawn on J&K Bank’s Brein Nishat branch.
The cheque was subsequently dishonoured with the bank recording the reason as “Payment Stopped by Drawer”.
The complainant maintained that a statutory demand notice was sent to the accused on August 24, 2021, calling upon him to pay the amount within the prescribed 15-day period. However, the payment was not made, prompting the filing of the complaint.
During the proceedings, Bujal admitted his signature on the cheque but maintained that he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the complainant in the course of their business dealings.
He denied owing any money and alleged that the cheque had been misused.
The defence also argued that the complainant had failed to produce the written settlement document or detailed accounts establishing the alleged liability.
It further questioned inconsistencies in the description of the transaction and the service of the demand notice.
The court, however, held that the admitted signature and handing over of the cheque attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
It observed that merely claiming that a signed blank cheque had been misused was insufficient, by itself, to rebut those presumptions.
The court also noted that the parties’ property-related business dealings were admitted and that a complainant’s witness had referred to a written settlement document reflecting an outstanding amount of approximately ₹49 lakh, although the document itself had not been produced.
While acknowledging the non-production of the settlement document, the court held that the circumstance alone did not nullify the statutory presumption.
It concluded that the defence had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that no legally enforceable liability existed.
The court further held that the demand notice was sufficiently established through the postal receipt and related evidence, observing that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption of due service.
Finding the essential ingredients of Section 138 proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court convicted Bujal and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment.
It also imposed a fine equivalent to double the cheque amount, directing that the amount be paid as compensation to the complainant.
As the accused was absent when the judgment was announced, the court ordered the issuance of a non-bailable warrant for his production and directed that the judgment be communicated to him upon his appearance.
