LexASHOK SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 504 : 2025 INSC 427 Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. R1: State of Uttar Pradesh R2: Ravindra Pratap Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 4171 of 2024) 02 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of guilt and the consequent conviction of the respondent no.2-accused under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Onus u/s.138 not on the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity for advancing loan to the accused, unless a case is set up in the reply to the statutory notice sent – On facts, the appellant advanced loan to the respondent no.2-accused – Cheque issued by the respondent to return the money was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘payment stopped by drawer’ – Respondent no.2 did not reply to the legal notice sent by the appellant – Complaint filed – Respondent no.2 convicted by Trial Court – Order confirmed by the Appellate Court – High Court set aside the conviction – Interference with: Held: There are serious doubts with regard to the veracity of the defences raised by the respondent no.2 – Admittedly, the signature on the cheque is of the respondent no.2 himself – One of the ground on which the High Court acquitted the respondent no.2 was that the appellant was unable to prove the source of the amount given to him as loan – The onus is not on the complainant at the threshold to prove his capacity/financial wherewithal to make the payment in discharge of which the cheque is alleged to have been issued in his favour – Only if an objection is raised that the complainant was not * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 505 Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in a financial position to pay the amount so claimed by him to have been given as a loan to the accused, only then the complainant would have to bring before the Court cogent material to indicate that he had the financial capacity and had actually advanced the amount in question by way of loan – Appellant had categorically stated in his deposition and reiterated in the cross-examination that he had withdrawn the amount from the bank – Respondent no.2 did not make any serious attempt to dispel such statement of the appellant – Appellant succeeded in establishing his case – Impugned order set aside – However, considering the age of the respondent no.2, conviction and sentence imposed upon him not revived – Sentence modified to only payment of fine, as directed. [Paras 18, 21-23] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Extent of burden of proof on the complainant – Discussed – Foremost defence available to the accused, stated. [Paras 15, 16] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Maintainability of complaint – Cheque issued by the respondent no.2-accused, a Partner in the Partnership Firm M/s Sun Enterprises was dishonoured – Complaint u/s.138 filed by the appellant against the respondent no.2 – Respondent no.2 contended that the complaint was not maintainable since the drawer of the cheque i.e., the Partnership Firm-M/s Sun Enterprises was not arrayed as a party – Sustainability: Held: Complaint is maintainable as the signatory of the cheque is arrayed as accused and is also the person in charge – It was never urged that the respondent no.2-accused, a Partner in M/s Sun Enterprises is not the person in charge thereof. [Para 20] Case Law Cited Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry [2022] 14 SCR 458 : (2022) 10 SCC 152 – held applicable. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [2012] 5 SCR 503 : (2012) 5 SCC 661; Aparna A Shah v. Sheth Developers Private Limited [2013] 7 SCR 69 : (2013) 8 SCC 71; S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 371 : (2005) 8 SCC 89; Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019] 2 SCR 506 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 24 : (2019) 4 SCC 197; Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh [2023] 13 SCR 788 : (2023) 10 SCC 148; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [2018] 5 SCR 69 : (2018) 8 SCC 165; Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan [2019] 13 SCR 425 : (2019) 10 SCC 287; Dattatraya v. Sharanappa [2024] 8 SCR 121 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1899; John K John v. Tom Varghese [2007] 11 SCR 287 : (2007) 12 SCC 714; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G Hegde [2008] 1 SCR 605 : (2008) 4 SCC 54; G Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew (Dead) thr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.