Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Notice: The court has framed notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 06.05.2022. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused and after being satisfied that the accused comprehended the same, the court recorded his plea.

5. Plea of the accused: The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He admitted his signatures on the impugned cheque however, denied filling particulars of the same. He also admitted that the address mentioned in the demand notice is his correct address, however he denied having received the legal demand notice. In his defence, he stated that he had business relations with the complainant and that he had given the cheque in question to the complainant as security for their transaction and that he has already paid the amount in cash but the complainant did not return him the cheque in question and has misused the same. On the same day the statement of accused for admission and denial was recorded U/S 294 Cr.P.C wherein he has admitted the correctness of dishonor memo.

25. Section 146 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in this regard comes into play which raises a presumption that the court shall presume the fact of dishonour of the cheque in case the cheque is returned vide a return memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured. Such bank slip or memo is a prima facie proof of dishonor. Further, the fact that the cheque in question has been dishonoured due to insufficient funds has not been disputed by the accused during trial, rather during his statement u/s 313 CrPC and his statement of admission and denial recorded U/S 294 CrPC, the accused has admitted correctness of the dishonor memo. Such admission of the accused clearly shows that he issued cheque from the account in question intentionally despite being aware that the same will not be honoured. Further, the defence has failed to rebut the said presumption as well. Hence, the condition is fulfilled.