Rajasthan High Court rules that anticipatory bail in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act requires prima facie evidence of dishonest intent at issuance, not just subsequent dishonour.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that denying an accused the right to examine themselves as a defence witness under BNSS Section 353 violates fair trial rights under Article 21.
Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that Section 138 NI Act offences can be compounded post-conviction if parties settle and compensation is paid, reinforcing the compensatory intent of the law.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes a Section 138 NI Act conviction after full repayment and No Due Certificate issuance, setting a precedent for compounding upon settlement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that delay in filing additional documentary evidence does not justify rejection if evidence is relevant and essential for a just trial under Section 311 CrPC.
Punjab & Haryana High Court clarifies that complainants in Section 138 NI Act cases can appeal acquittals under Section 372 CrPC without special leave, simplifying procedural requirements.
Kerala High Court holds that a partnership firm's name change does not affect standing to prosecute under Section 138 NI Act; presumption of liability stands unless rebutted by credible evidence.
Kerala High Court upholds conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding partners liable for dishonoured cheques issued by their firm. Key principles on vicarious liability and evidentiary standards clarified.
Bombay High Court holds that a one-day delay in filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint cannot be condoned without a formal application, reinforcing mandatory statutory timelines.
Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that security cheques issued for commercial liability can trigger Section 138 NI Act prosecution; presumption of debt applies if signature is admitted.
Kerala High Court holds that inability to identify accused in court after years does not negate proof of cheque issuance under Section 138 NI Act. Key precedent for evidentiary standards.
Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail in a Section 138 NI Act case, holding that prolonged trial delay and past non-appearance cannot justify denial of regular bail without evaluating current risk of flight.
Bombay High Court clarifies that directors cannot be automatically prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act without proof of active involvement in cheque dishonour offences.
Bombay High Court holds that prosecution under Section 138 NI Act against partners requires clear allegation of involvement and privity of contract; mere designation insufficient.
Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to convicted accused under Section 138 NI Act on deposit of Rs. 1 lakh fine and personal bond, clarifying conditions for suspension of sentence.