Merely because the signature on the cheque is of the accused, complainant cannot claim a conviction unless accused is connected with bank account [Read the Order]

Bombay High Court has observed that merely because the signature on the cheque and signatures on other documents are of the accused, does not help the complainant. The complainant ought to have adduced evidence to show the connection of the accused with the bank account, on which the cheque was drawn.

Order was passed by Justice Modak in the case titled Hinganghat Nagri Sah. Path vs Sherali Nazirali on 12.03.2020.

High Court noted the fact as under:

"There was a loan transaction between the complainant-society and the accused. The complainant was the lender, whereas the accused was the borrower. The cheque in question, dated 16/09/2002 for Rs.49,623/- was issued by the accused towards repayment. It was drawn on Bank of India, Hinganghat Branch. The complainant accepted the cheque under the belief that the accused was concerned with the bank account and the same will be honoured on its presentation. On its presentation, it got dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. There is a dispute about, who is the account holder. The complainant believes that the accused is the account holder (his belief is bona fide, because he accepted the cheque under the presumption that the accused must be the account holder). Those were the days when the name of the account holder was not printed on the cheque. Whereas, during the trial, the accused took defence that he is not the account holder, but his father is the account holder".

High Court then observed as under:

"Section 138 of the NI Act mandates drawing of a cheque by a person and it must be on an account maintained by him. In this case, drawing of cheque is there (we do not know how the accused got the custody of cheque book of father). But, second ingredient about “bank account must stand in the name of drawer” is absent".

High Court further observed:

"Merely because the signature on the cheque and signatures on other documents are of the accused, does not help the complainant. The complainant ought to have adduced evidence to show the connection of the accused with the bank account, on which the cheque was drawn. The complainant has not done this. If the complainant is misrepresented, then the remedy of prosecuting under Section 138 of the NI Act could not be continued (when there is no evidence of connection in between the accused and the cheque), but the remedy is elsewhere".

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :