Guidelines for compounding cheque-bounce cases: Supreme Court

While it had earlier held that cheque-bouncing cases can be compounded, noting their conspicuous absence in law, in a recent decision the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for compounding cheque-bounce cases. The background, leading to the issuance of these guidelines, was noted by the Bench in the following terms;

3. ... It may be recalled that Chapter XVII comprising sections 138 to 142 was inserted into the Act by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988). The object of bringing Section 138 into the statute was to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. It was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficient arrangements made by the drawer, with adequate safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. If the cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the drawer’s account or if it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account, the drawer is to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. It may be noted that when the offence was inserted in the statute in 1988, it carried the provision for imprisonment up to one year, which was revised to two years following the amendment to the Act in 2002. It is quite evident that the legislative intent was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the worryingly high incidence of dishonour of cheques. While the possibility of imprisonment up to two years provides a remedy of a punitive nature, the provision for imposing a ‘fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque’ serves a compensatory purpose. What must be remembered is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions.

4. Invariably, the provision of a strong criminal remedy has encouraged the institution of a large number of cases that are relatable to the offence contemplated by Section 138 of the Act. So much so, that at present a disproportionately large number of cases involving the dishonour of cheques is choking our criminal justice system, especially at the level of Magistrates’ Courts. As per the 213th Report of the Law Commission of India, more than 38 lakh cheque bouncing cases were pending before various courts in the country as of October 2008. This is putting an unprecedented strain on our judicial system.

Being of this view, the Supreme Court laid the guidelines for compounding of cheque-bounce cases as under;

15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: 

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate’s Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

16. We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General’s suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively.

17. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum.

Have a look at the decision.

Rebuttable presumption in Cheque-Bouncing cases: Supreme Court

Holding that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is one of rebuttable in nature, it is open to the accused in a cheque-bounce case to lead in evidence to rebut the presumption. Section 139 prescribes that "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt, or other liability." Thus once a holder of cheque lodges a complaint, it is presumed that the cheque was issued for discharging a liability, which unless rebutted leads to a conclusion that offence has indeed been concluded. However this presumption can be rebutted and the Bench specified the manner in which such presumption can be rebutted. 

The Bench declared the law in the following terms;

14. ... As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. In such a scenario, the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses and the accused/defendant cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard or proof. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of ‘preponderance of probabilities’. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. 

Have a look at the decision.

Courts only at payor's bank have jurisdiction on cheque bounce: High Court

In a recent decision the Delhi High Court has declared that the jurisdiction to deal with a cheque-bounce case is only where the bank of the payer is located as the cheque is deemed to be presented at the payer's bank. It makes no distinction from the fact that the cheque has been deposited at any other bank for payment or that the notice demanding payment has been made from another place. The High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction in the case where the cheques were drawn by the payor on a Raipur bank turning down the argument that they were presented for payment in Delhi bank and that the notice demanding payment was issued from Delhi.

The High Court held as under;

3. There are five essential ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of “K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran VAidhyan Balan & Another”, (1999) 7 SCC 510, (i) drawing of the cheque, (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank of the payee, (iii) return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (iv) giving of notice to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

4. This is not the case of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued and delivered to it in Delhi. There is no allegation to this effect in the complaint. On the other hand, the petitioner has specifically stated that cheques in question was issued in Raipur. It is also not disputed that the cheque in question was drawn on a bank in Raipur and was dishonoured by that bank at Raipur. It is also not in dispute that the notice of demand, though issued from Delhi, was sent to the petitioner at Raipur and, therefore, this is not the case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that the notice was served upon the petitioner in Delhi.

5. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Harman Electronics Private Limited & Another Vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited”, 2009 (1) SCC 720: “A distinction must also be borne in mind between the ingredient of an offence and commission of a part of the offence. While issuance of a notice by the holder of a negotiable instrument is necessary, service thereof is also imperative. Only on a service of such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days thereafter, the commission of an offence completes.”

6. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 was that the cheque in question having been deposited with the bank of the complainant in Delhi and presentation of the cheque being an essential component of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

7. As regards presentation of the cheque, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd”; (2001) 3 SCC 609, inter-alia, held that “The bank” referred to in clause (a) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all the banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favour the cheque is issued.”

It was further observed that “the payee of the cheque has the option to present the cheque in any bank including the collecting bank where he has his account but to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to present the cheque in the drawee or Payee bank on which the cheque is drawn within the period of six months from the date on which it is shown to have been issued.”

In para 10 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that “Sections 3, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable.”

8. The ratio of the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that a cheque is deemed to have been presented to the banker of the drawer irrespective of the fact whether it is deposited by the payee in his own bank. The banker of the payee, after receiving the cheque from him, is required to present it to the banker of the drawer and therefore if the cheque issued from a bank in Raipur is deposited in Delhi, the bank in which it is deposited in Delhi, is required to present it to the bank at Raipur, for the purpose of encashment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cheque issued by the petitioner was presented in Delhi. Despite the fact that the bank in which the respondent No. 2 had an account was in Delhi, the cheque shall be deemed to have been presented only to the bank at Raipur on which it was drawn. Therefore, deposit of cheque in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi court to try this complaint.

Have a look at the decision.

No criminal liability for post dated cheque bounce: High Court

In a recent decision the Bombay High Court, taking a literal view of the statutory provisions, has declared that a person is not liable under the Negotiable Instruments Act for bouncing of cheques if the liability is alleged on account of post-dated cheques given by such person. The High Court was dealing with the validity of the acquittal order passed by the Magistrate where it was alleged by the Co-operative society which had extended a loan that the person had given post-dated cheques as security for the loan taken which had bounced for insufficiency of funds. 

The High Court, agreeing with the acquittal order passed by the Magistrate, observed as under;

14. Thus the object of the amendment and introduction of Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act by Act of 1988 was mainly to encourage all major transactions including commercial or business transactions through cheques and to enforce credibility and acceptability of cheques in settlement of liability in general. Encouragement of payment by cheques/credit cards/debit cards rather than by cash is necessary for healthy economy. That also brings in transparency in transactions and discourages creation of black or unaccounted money through evasion of taxes or other malpractices. So, provisions like Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are salutary to give reliability, credibility and acceptability of negotiable instruments like cheques in daily life. However, the object was not to provide effective and speedy remedy for recovery of loans. Law makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers to repay loan under threat of prosecution and punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So, it is doubtful if provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted to a case in which a blank or post dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amount as security for the loan.

...

21. In the present case blank cheques were issued prior to disbursement of loan as a collateral security for loan which was sanctioned. In such case there was no existing debt or liability when the cheque is issued. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case does not fall within four corners of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Of course such defence is available against payee and not holder in due course.

Have a look at the decision.

Non-controlling directors not liable for cheque bounce: Supreme Court

Saving them from prosecution for bouncing of cheque, the Supreme Court in a recent decision has declared that Directors and such other officers of a company would not be liable for prosecution for bouncing of cheques if they were not in-charge of and also not responsible for the conduct of the company. Reading Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act literally, the Supreme Court declared the law as under;

It is very clear from the above provision that what is required is that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. Only those persons who were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. It follows from the fact that if a Director of a Company who was not in-charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable for a criminal offence under the provisions. The liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. 

10) Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner Respondent No.1 was in-charge of or was responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes, especially, where such statutes create vicarious liability. A company may have a number of Directors and to make any or all the Directors as accused in a complaint merely on the basis of a statement that they are in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more is not a sufficient or adequate fulfillment of the requirements under Section 141.

11) In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that for making Directors liable for the offences committed by the company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Directors, showing as to how and in what manner the Directors were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

In this background, the Supreme Court laid down the principles for determining the liability of the Directors as under;

25) From the above discussion, the following principles emerge :

(i) The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the criminal liability, there is no presumption that every Director knows about the transaction.

(ii) Section 141 does not make all the Directors liable for the offence. The criminal liability can be fastened only on those who, at the time of the commission of the offence, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

(iii) Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint/petition, are made so as to make accused therein vicariously liable for offence committed by company along with averments in the petition containing that accused were in-charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with.

(iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. 

(v) If accused is Managing Director or Joint Managing Director then it is not necessary to make specific averment in the complaint and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with.

(vi) If accused is a Director or an Officer of a company who signed the cheques on behalf of the company then also it is not necessary to make specific averment in complaint.

(vii) The person sought to be made liable should be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a Director in such cases.

Have a look at the decision.

Cheque bouncing offences can be compounded: Supreme Court

Paving the way for earlier settlement of cheque-bouncing cases, the Supreme Court has declared that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act relating to the bouncing of cheques can be compounded. This would imply that even though criminal proceedings have commenced against a person for bouncing of cheque, the same can be dropped in the event of the defaulter compromising with the complainant upon payment of the default amount. In fact even if a defaulter has been convicted, the conviction can be set-aside in terms of the compounding provision. 

The Supreme Court declared the law as under;

9. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which would not in the strict sense of the term apply to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of the court, and also vests the court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By virtue of Sub-Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be compounded. Inasmuch as, it is with a similar object in mind that Section 147 has been inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., although, the same has not been expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act.

...

12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Have a look at the decision.

Post Script Rejoinder

After this decision was passed by the Supreme Court, in another decision guidelines for compounding of the cheque-bouncing cases were made by the Court. We have covered the same in a subsequent post and recommend the reader to have a look so as to have a cumulative understanding of the issue.