Required judgement for 138 NI Act case

853 votes

In cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), the complainant’s lawyer may adjust the emphasis or strategy during final arguments, but cannot fundamentally alter the original stand taken in the complaint. Courts have consistently held that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot introduce a new case at the stage of arguments. For instance, in the case of Dharmender Bhardwaj v. Shashi Saini & Another, the court emphasized that once the issuance of a cheque and the signature are admitted, a presumption of a legally enforceable debt arises in favor of the complainant. The accused must then rebut this presumption by providing credible evidence. This case illustrates the importance of the complainant maintaining consistency in their allegations throughout the trial.  Similarly, in Brij Nandan Gupta v. Vipul Vikram Singh, the court held that the complainant successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. This underscores that the complainant’s consistent stand, supported by evidence, is crucial for a successful prosecution.  Therefore, while minor adjustments in legal arguments are permissible, any significant deviation from the original complaint without proper procedural steps, such as filing an amendment application, may not be accepted by the court. If you have a specific case or scenario in mind, please provide more details so I can offer more tailored information.

Advocate Sonal Singh LawRato

969 votes

In a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant cannot improve or alter their case during final arguments beyond what is stated in the complaint and evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State v. Rajesh Rajora (2021 SCC OnLine SC 682) and other High Court rulings have emphasized that a party cannot change its stand or bring a new case at the stage of final arguments. Any deviation without formal amendment or evidence is impermissible. You may also refer to K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510, for foundational principles under S.138 proceedings. Best Regards, Adv Adarsh Kumar

Advocate Adarsh Kumar LawRato

895 votes

Hi. What you are mentioning is correct information in the general sense. However there are exceptions carved out by some SC & HC judgements allowing space for amending the complaint. You can call to discuss and judgement can thereafter be provided precisely as per your requirement based on the consultation.

Advocate Vikas Sharma LawRato