The court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Srinagar, also imposed a fine of ₹9 lakh, directing that the amount be paid to the complainant, with ₹5.06 lakh already paid during the proceedings to be adjusted against the amount.
In its operative directions, the court ordered Wani to undergo six months of simple imprisonment at Central Jail, Srinagar, and directed the issuance of a docket to the jail authorities for implementation of the sentence.
The complaint was filed on July 8, 2022, by Hilal Ahmad Sheikh, proprietor of Sheikh Iron Store, Sanat Nagar, Srinagar, who alleged that he had supplied iron and structural construction material worth ₹12 lakh to Wani.
According to the complaint, Wani issued two cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank’s Rawalpora branch towards part payment of the outstanding amount. Cheque No. 876965 was for ₹6 lakh, while cheque No. 876967 was for ₹1 lakh. Both were dated March 15, 2022.
The cheques were returned unpaid with the bank endorsement “Refer to Drawer”. After a legal demand notice dated April 20, 2022, failed to result in payment within the stipulated period, Sheikh initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the trial, Wani argued that the cheques had been issued as advance security in the course of long-standing commercial dealings. He also questioned the complainant’s failure to produce contemporaneous GST invoices and ledger statements and claimed to have made subsequent payments totalling ₹10.55 lakh.
However, during cross-examination, Wani admitted his signatures on both cheques and acknowledged that a liability of ₹7 lakh remained outstanding at the relevant time. The account of his admission was also supported by the deposition of his son, according to the case record.
The court held that the admission of the cheques’ execution attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which operate in favour of the holder of a cheque unless rebutted by the accused.
The court also observed that describing a cheque as a security instrument does not, by itself, exclude liability under Section 138 if an enforceable debt existed when the cheque was presented.
On the issue of subsequent payments, the court held that payments made during the trial did not retrospectively extinguish an offence already constituted. However, amounts paid and acknowledged by the complainant had to be adjusted against the fine to prevent double recovery.
The complainant was represented by Muheet Yousuf & Associates, while Irfan & Associates appeared for the accused. (KDC)
