#cheque bounce case

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the absence of a Section 65B certificate does not permanently bar defence evidence in cheque bounce cases. The accused may file a fresh application to cure the defect, ensuring fair trial rights are not sacrificed over procedural technicalities. This clarifies that Section 65B’s certificate requirement is curable, not fatal, when applied to defence documents.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that denying an accused the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a cheque bounce case violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21. This mandates trial courts to ensure timely and uninterrupted cross-examination, especially when witness testimonies are interdependent, reinforcing procedural fairness over procedural convenience in NI Act prosecutions.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a mutually settled compromise between parties in a cheque bounce case overrides a prior conviction, entitling the accused to acquittal even after judicial findings of guilt. This affirms that Section 138 offences, being compoundable by nature, allow settlement to extinguish criminal liability at any stage, reshaping litigation strategy for commercial disputes.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that appeals against acquittal orders passed by a Magistrate must be filed before the Sessions Court, not the High Court, under Section 378(4) CrPC. The ruling underscores the statutory hierarchy in criminal appeals, impacting litigants and practitioners in cheque bounce and other criminal cases.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply if the underlying contract is novated or substituted. The ruling clarifies that cheque bounce prosecutions require proof of an enforceable debt at the time of issuance, impacting creditors relying on statutory presumptions in debt recovery cases.

The Allahabad High Court mandates that accused in cheque bounce cases file for compounding within five months of the summoning order, reinforcing that Section 138 is designed to secure payment, not punishment. This procedural deadline creates urgency for settlement, benefiting both complainants seeking timely recovery and accused avoiding prolonged litigation.

The Telangana High Court has capped the mandatory deposit for appeals under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at 10% of the compensation amount, overturning the lower court’s 20% order. This aligns with Supreme Court precedent and ensures that higher deposits require reasoned justification, protecting accused persons from disproportionate financial burdens during appellate stays.