SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has convicted Bashir Ahmad Bujal in a cheque dishonour case involving Rs 46.50 lakh and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment, besides imposing a fine equivalent to double the cheque amount, to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
The judgment was pronounced on October 21, 2026, by Judicial Magistrate First Class Junaid Imtiaz Mir, Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, in a complaint filed by Naseer Ahmad Ratta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The court held Bujal guilty of issuing a cheque towards a legally enforceable liability and failing to make the payment despite its dishonour and the subsequent statutory demand notice.
According to the judgment, the complainant and the accused had been engaged in the business of buying and selling land and properties for several years. Ratta told the court that after the settlement of their accounts, Rs 46.50 lakh became payable by Bujal.
The accused allegedly issued cheque number 563644 dated May 1, 2021, for Rs 46.50 lakh, drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank’s Brein Nishat branch in Srinagar. The cheque was returned unpaid on July 28, 2021, with the bank recording the reason as “Payment Stopped by Drawer”.
The complainant subsequently issued a demand notice dated August 24, 2021, asking the accused to pay the amount within 15 days. As the payment was not made, Ratta approached the court.
During the proceedings, Bujal admitted his signature on the cheque but maintained that he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the complainant because of their business relationship and mutual trust. He denied owing any money to Ratta and alleged that the cheque had been misused.
The accused also disputed the complainant’s account of the transaction, arguing that the statutory notice described the amount as a loan, whereas the complaint attributed the liability to the settlement of property-related business accounts. He further contended that the complainant had failed to produce the relevant account records establishing the alleged liability.
The complainant examined five witnesses in support of his case, including himself, two witnesses familiar with the parties’ dealings, a Jammu and Kashmir Bank branch manager and a postman. The accused produced defence witnesses who spoke about the parties’ business relationship and their alleged settlement of accounts.
The court noted that the complainant had admitted that he filled in the particulars of the cheque, including its date, at the accused’s instance. However, it held that this did not invalidate the cheque or, by itself, rebut the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted signature and handing over of the instrument.
The judgment observed that Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raise a presumption that a cheque was issued towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability once its execution is admitted or proved. The accused can rebut this presumption by establishing a probable defence on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities.
The court acknowledged that the complainant had not produced the written document allegedly prepared during the settlement of accounts. However, it held that the document’s non-production did not, by itself, nullify the statutory presumption.
It also considered the testimony of Javaid Gowher Mir, one of the complainant’s witnesses, who recalled that the written settlement document reflected an outstanding amount of approximately Rs 49 lakh. The court said this testimony, considered alongside the admitted business relationship and issuance of the cheque, lent probability to the complainant’s version.
The defence witnesses had stated that the parties settled their accounts and that no liability remained. However, the court found that they had not established the precise terms of the alleged settlement or produced the accounts to demonstrate that the cheque no longer represented any liability.
The court also took into account the absence of evidence showing that the accused had demanded the return of the cheque or taken contemporaneous action alleging its misuse. It clarified, however, that failure to lodge a police complaint was not, by itself, proof of liability.
Rejecting the defence arguments, the court held that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption and that the complainant had established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond reasonable doubt.
The court accordingly convicted Bujal and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment. It also imposed a fine equivalent to double the cheque amount, to be paid as compensation to the complainant. On that basis, the amount works out to Rs 93 lakh.
The judgment records that the accused was absent when it was pronounced. The court directed that a non-bailable warrant be issued against him and ordered that the judgment be communicated to him once he was brought before the court.
The matter was listed for October 24, 2026.
