Mohali Court Dismisses Ink Colour Defence in Cheque Bounce Case, Sentences Accused to Two Years
In a significant ruling, a local court in Mohali has firmly stated that a change in the colour of ink used on a cheque cannot serve as a valid defence in cases of cheque dishonour. Judicial Magistrate First Class Parneet Kaur of Derabassi delivered this judgment while dismissing a defence plea and imposing a two-year imprisonment sentence on the accused in a cheque bounce matter.
Case Details and Sentencing
The court sentenced Shahbaz Singh Sohi, husband of AAP MLA Anmol Gagan Maan, to two years of imprisonment in connection with a cheque bounce case. The plea for leniency, based on it being a first offence and lack of knowledge about transactions by his partners during a property deal, was also rejected by the court. This decision underscores the court's strict stance on financial misconduct.
Defence Argument and Court's Rejection
During the proceedings, the counsel for the accused argued that the cheque was misused, pointing out that the signatures of the accused were in a different ink from the rest of the contents filled on the cheque. The defence claimed this indicated the accused did not fill in the cheque particulars. However, the court rejected this argument, holding it lacked merit as the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque.
Referring to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court observed that when a signed blank cheque is handed over, it implies the holder has the authority to fill in the details. The law recognises such an instrument as valid, and the holder is authorised to complete it. The court further clarified that there is no legal requirement mandating the contents of a cheque must be filled using the same ink as the signature.
"Merely the allegation of different ink used for signatures and other contents does not constitute a valid defence," the court noted, adding that once the signature is admitted, the drawer cannot escape liability on this ground.
Court's Observations on Conduct and Impact
Taking a serious view of the conduct of the accused, the court observed a clear disregard for the law. It noted that the accused failed to clear the outstanding amount due to the complainant, and the cheque issued towards payment was dishonoured. Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused did not make the payment, forcing the complainant into prolonged litigation.
The court highlighted the hardship faced by the complainant, who had been pursuing the case for the last seven to eight years, incurring significant expenses and suffering financial loss in the process.
Denial of Probation and Legislative Intent
Denying the benefit of probation, the court stated that granting such relief would defeat the intent of the law governing cheque dishonour cases. The judgment emphasised that the penal provisions are meant to ensure the credibility of financial instruments and maintain trust in commercial transactions.
"In my considered view, the accused does not deserve the benefit of being released on probation, as such a measure would frustrate the legislative intent behind penalising cheque dishonour," the court observed in its ruling.
This ruling reinforces the strict enforcement of financial laws and serves as a warning against attempts to evade liability through technical defences in cheque bounce cases.
