SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has convicted Bashir Ahmad Bujal in a Rs 46.50 lakh cheque dishonour case, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine equivalent to twice the cheque amount, to be paid as compensation to the complainant.
The Court of Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge, Srinagar, presided over by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate First Class Junaid Imtiaz Mir, found Bujal guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that he had failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability.
The judgment was pronounced on October 21, 2026. As the accused was absent when it was delivered, the court ordered the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and directed that the judgment be communicated to him once he was brought before the court. The matter was listed for October 24.
The complaint was filed by Naseer Ahmad Ratta, a resident of Ishber, Nishat, Srinagar, against Bujal, a resident of Nehru Park, Srinagar, over the dishonour of a cheque for Rs 46,50,000.
According to the complaint, the two men had been engaged in buying and selling land and property for several years. Ratta alleged that, following the settlement of their business accounts, Rs 46.50 lakh became payable by Bujal, who issued cheque number 563644 dated May 1, 2021, drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank’s Brein Nishat branch, towards payment of the outstanding amount.
The cheque was returned unpaid on July 28, 2021, with the bank citing “Payment Stopped by Drawer” as the reason, according to the judgment.
Ratta subsequently issued a demand notice dated August 24, 2021, calling upon Bujal to pay the amount within 15 days. As the payment was not made, the complainant approached the court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court had earlier condoned the delay in filing the complaint through an order dated March 9, 2022.
During the proceedings, Bujal denied that any legally enforceable amount was due to Ratta. He maintained that he had handed over a signed blank cheque to the complainant because of their business dealings and mutual trust, alleging that the cheque had subsequently been filled in and misused.
The accused also disputed the complainant’s account of the liability, arguing that the demand notice described the transaction as a loan, whereas the complaint stated that the amount had become payable following the settlement of business accounts. He further contended that the complainant had failed to produce the written settlement document or complete accounts to establish the alleged outstanding liability.
The court examined the evidence of five witnesses presented by the complainant and three defence witnesses whose testimonies were considered in the judgment. Ratta appeared as his own witness. The other witnesses included a person who recalled a written settlement between the parties, a bank manager and a postal department employee.
During his testimony, Ratta acknowledged that he had filled in the particulars on the cheque and written the date at the accused’s instance. He also stated that the accounts between the parties had been recorded in writing on a piece of paper but admitted that the document had neither been handed over to his counsel nor produced before the court.
Javaid Gowher Mir, one of the complainant’s witnesses, stated that a written document had been prepared in the presence of the parties and witnesses. According to his recollection, it reflected an outstanding amount of approximately Rs 49 lakh. However, the document was not produced in court.
The defence witnesses supported Bujal’s claim that the parties had settled their business accounts and that no liability remained outstanding. They also spoke about the business relationship between the parties and the complainant’s alleged possession of the accused’s signed cheque book.
The court, however, held that the defence witnesses had neither produced nor proved the actual accounts between the parties, nor established the precise terms of the alleged settlement sufficiently to demonstrate that no liability remained. It also noted that there was no evidence showing that the cheque had been returned to the accused or cancelled after the alleged settlement.
The court observed that it had considered the non-production of the settlement document but held that its absence did not, by itself, nullify the statutory presumption arising from the admitted signature and handing over of the cheque.
According to the judgment, the accused had admitted his signature on the cheque and had not disputed handing it over to the complainant. The court held that these admissions attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, under which a cheque is presumed to have been issued towards discharge of a debt or other liability unless the contrary is established.
The court also observed that the fact that the complainant had filled in the cheque’s particulars did not, by itself, invalidate the instrument or rebut the statutory presumption.
While acknowledging that the accused could rebut the presumption by raising a probable defence on the balance of probabilities, the court concluded that he had failed to produce sufficient material to establish that the cheque had been misused or that no legally enforceable liability existed.
The court also considered that the cheque had been dishonoured following a stop-payment instruction. It noted that the accused had not established that he had taken contemporaneous steps to allege misuse of the cheque, demand its return or initiate other proceedings in that regard. However, the court clarified that the failure to lodge a police complaint was not, by itself, proof of liability, and assessed the issue in the context of the overall evidence.
Regarding the demand notice, the court held that the postal receipt and evidence relating to its booking, together with the absence of convincing material showing that the notice had been sent to an incorrect address, supported the presumption of due service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It found that the accused had failed to rebut that presumption.
The court rejected the defence arguments concerning the description of the transaction in the demand notice and complaint, as well as discrepancies in certain dates and particulars, holding that these did not displace the statutory presumption in the circumstances of the case.
Concluding that the complainant had established the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the court convicted Bujal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine equivalent to twice the cheque amount, directing that the entire amount be paid as compensation to the complainant. It further ordered that the sentence be served at Central Jail Srinagar.
Adv. Muzamil Yousuf Bhat, Adv. Showkat Ahmad Yatoo and Adv. Bashir Siddiq represented the parties in the case.
