Get Legal Help Now

Cheque Bounce :- 

Numerous cases are being filed at Magistrate Courts of Indian jurisdiction. This is actually in nature a civil liability to the borrower; which is in fact legally enforced by quasi criminal action under section 138 of N. I . Act.  which makes  the criminalization of cheque bounce as per the Negotiable Instrument Act, has led to flooding of filing of cases by lender after being defrauded or non payment of fund and unable to pay by banks by declaring un-sufficient fund . Hence, huge piling up of cases are pending in the court at Bihar, Kolkata, Delhi, Bangalore, Mumbai, Pune, Chandigarh, Ahmadabad, Baroda, Patna, Ranchi, Lucknow, Kanpur, in all most every state of India. There are over 1 crore case pending in the courts. 

In the year 2020 there has been delayed long term proposal by the Finance Minister to decriminalize economic offences including cheque bounce offence or dishonoring of cheques and makes it a civil nature of case. Now, if such vidhik /law proposal is being accepted and enforced then fear or pressure of criminal prosecution will not be any more. 

Therefore , there would not be any Non- Bailable warrant against accused / borrower, hence on the  the better side for lenders whose money is unrecoverable and declared Non Profitable Assets. Resultantly the piled up of such cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined and observed that there should be separate specialized courts assigned for section 138 of N. I. Act. 

Landmark Judgement The  Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar verdict S.C, 2014, 

The Allahabad high court on Thursday, August 18,2022 :-

Sentenced an officer of the Uttar Pradesh police to 14 days in prison for contempt of court after he deliberately acted against the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar verdict wherein, the ruled was led down that arrest should be the exception in cases in which the punishment for the crime is less than seven years imprisonment. i.e., In lieu of arrest in such cases, the accused should be served a notice for appearance under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) .

The court observed that "the contemnor, in the circumstances, has circumvented the mandate which was binding upon him,” and refused to grant Kumar any leeway in the sentencing and noted that it would not be in the public interest or serve the administration of justice. Kumar was ordered to undergo 14 days of simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 1,000 for contempt of court. 

Sunil Bhardwaj @ Sunil Kumar  vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement :- Wherein Patna High Court stayed The Money Laundering Case against an accused person booked by Enforcement Directorate (ED), for alleged supply of liquor in Bihar Violation of the Bihar Excise. Prohibition Act, 2016.

The Quashing has been relied on The Sumpreme Court's recent verdict in "Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement" wherein contented that the offence u/s 120B of the I.P.C. becomes a PMLA offence only , if the conspiracy is to commit an offence which is specifically included in the schedule under IPC.Penal Code can bring any offence within the ambit of the PMLA. Hence, any offence committed under the Bihar Excise. Prohibition Act, 2016, would not come under the perview of the ED; an offence committed so is not a schedule offence. The Hon'ble court has stayed the further proceeding till next hearing fixed on the April 29.