An omnibus notice without specifying the cheque amount would not subserve the requirement of law : Legal notice must demand cheque amount specifically: Barun Bhanot v. Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt. Ltd. HDHC 2025
๐งพ Case Analysis: Barun Bhanot v. Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi High Court Judgment | CRL.L.P. 45/2018 | Decided on: 09 June 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
๐ Background
In this case, the petitioner, Barun Bhanot, proprietor of A.B. Consultants, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of two cheques of ₹50,000 each issued by the respondents — M/s Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director.
The cheques were dishonoured with the remark “payment stopped by drawer.” After issuance of legal demand notice and failure of payment, the petitioner filed a complaint which was later dismissed by the Trial Court (MM, Patiala House Courts) in 2017.
⚖️ Trial Court Observations
The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, citing:
-
The legal notice failed to comply with Section 138(b) — no clear demand for the cheque amount (₹1,00,000) was made.
-
The notice only demanded “all dues” amounting to ₹2,64,689 — without specifying cheque numbers or amounts.
-
Inconsistencies in accounts: the petitioner claimed ₹2,64,689 in the complaint, but documents showed ₹2,43,982 as outstanding — this raised credibility concerns.
-
The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by pointing out double billing and incorrect invoices.
๐งพ High Court Analysis
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the appeal, examined the following legal aspects:
1. ๐ Legal Demand Notice Must Specify Cheque Amount
Referring to Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers (2008) 2 SCC 321, the Court emphasized:
“An omnibus notice without specifying the cheque amount would not subserve the requirement of law.”
The petitioner’s notice failed to specifically demand ₹1,00,000, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques, violating the mandatory requirement of Section 138(b).
2. ⚖️ Presumption under Section 139 — Not Absolute
As per Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 and reaffirmed in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148:
Once execution of the cheque is admitted, presumption arises that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.
However, the accused can rebut this presumption by raising a probable defence through circumstantial or direct evidence.
In this case:
-
The respondents raised doubts about the billing process (e.g., double invoicing).
-
Highlighted discrepancy in claimed vs actual dues.
-
These facts were enough to dislodge the presumption under Section 139.
3. ⚖️ No Perversity in Acquittal
The Court relied on Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106 to hold:
In cheque dishonour cases, appellate courts may interfere with acquittal only if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
Here, the acquittal was found to be based on sound appreciation of evidence, and hence no interference was warranted.
✅ Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that:
-
The petitioner’s legal notice was invalid for not demanding the cheque amount.
-
The respondents successfully rebutted the legal presumption.
-
There was no perversity or legal error in the trial court's acquittal order.
๐ Final Verdict:
Leave to appeal dismissed.
๐ Legal Provisions & Key Judgments Discussed
| Section / Case Law | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Section 138(b), NI Act | Legal notice must demand cheque amount specifically |
| Section 139, NI Act | Legal presumption of liability — rebuttable by accused |
| Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers (2008) 2 SCC 321 | Legal notice must not be vague |
| Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 | Presumption arises once signature admitted |
| Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh (2023) 10 SCC 148 | Burden shifts back to complainant once rebutted |
| Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 18 SCC 106 | Limits of appellate interference in NI Act acquittals |
✍️ For more judgment summaries and legal updates follow our blog or subscribe.
Comments
Post a Comment