SRINAGAR: A court in Srinagar has sentenced a Bemina resident to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 9.2 lakh after convicting him in a cheque dishonour case involving Rs 6.6 lakh, ruling that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the bounced cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt.
The Court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srinagar, presided over by Vikas Bhardwaj, held accused Jamsheed Ahmad Khuru guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing two cheques worth Rs 3.6 lakh and Rs 3 lakh respectively, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
The complaint was filed by Showkat Ahmad Gadda under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
According to the judgment, the complainant stated that in 2022, after being introduced through a family friend, the accused sought Rs 7.5 lakh for his brick kiln business and was advanced Rs 6.6 lakh through a combination of bank transfers and cash, with an assurance that the amount would be returned within two weeks.
To discharge that liability, the accused issued two cheques — Cheque No. 686870 dated November 15, 2022, for Rs 3.6 lakh and Cheque No. 830286 dated January 5, 2023, for Rs 3 lakh — drawn on JK Bank’s Parimpora branch.
When presented for encashment, both cheques were dishonoured on January 23, 2023, due to “funds insufficient”. Despite a legal demand notice issued on January 27, 2023, the accused failed to clear the amount within the statutory period, leading to the filing of the complaint.
During the trial, the complainant testified that approximately Rs 4 lakh had been transferred through bank accounts operated by him and his wife, while Rs 2.6 lakh had been paid in cash. Though no written loan agreement or independent proof for the cash component was produced, the court found that his testimony remained materially consistent on the central facts of the transaction, issuance of cheques, dishonour and non-payment.
A prosecution witness, Fayaz Ahmad Dar, corroborated the complainant’s version on the crucial point of cheque issuance, telling the court that the accused signed and handed over the cheques in his presence.
The Branch Manager of JK Bank also produced official bank records confirming that the account belonged to the accused and that both cheques were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds.
In its analysis, the court stressed that under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once cheque issuance is admitted or not specifically denied, the law presumes that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
“A conjoint reading of the provisions… makes it evident that once the issuance of the cheque is admitted, a presumption arises in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any legally enforceable debt or liability, unless the contrary is proved by the accused,” the court observed.
The court noted that while certain discrepancies emerged regarding exact dates and documentation of some payments, these were not sufficient to demolish the complainant’s case.
“The minor inconsistencies regarding exact dates of cash payment or absence of written loan documentation do not strike at the root of the prosecution case,” the judgment said.
A significant factor weighed against the accused after he failed to produce defence evidence despite multiple opportunities. His right to lead evidence was eventually closed by the court on November 18, 2025.
“Mere suggestions put in cross-examination, unsupported by substantive evidence, cannot be treated as proof of defence,” the court said, adding that the statutory presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted.
Concluding that all essential ingredients of Section 138 stood established beyond reasonable doubt, the court convicted the accused and ordered him to undergo one year of simple imprisonment at Central Jail Srinagar. In addition, it imposed a fine of ₹9.2 lakh, payable entirely to the complainant as compensation.
The court further directed that if the convict fails to pay the amount, the District Magistrate, Srinagar, shall identify and attach his movable or immovable properties for sale in accordance with the law to recover the compensation. (KDC)
