Major Verdict in Cheque Bounce Case: Previously Acquitted Accused Convicted; Sentenced to 6 Months in Jail and Ordered to Pay ₹1.24 Lakh Compensation
📍 Ranchi | M Bharat 24 News Live
A court in Ranchi has overturned a lower court's acquittal and convicted the accused in a significant cheque bounce case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act). The court sentenced Sumit Agarwal—a resident of Bokaro Steel City and a partner in the firm 'Memsahab'—to six months of simple imprisonment. Additionally, he was ordered to pay ₹1,24,031 in compensation to the complainant, Santosh Kumar Chaudhary. Failure to pay the stipulated amount will result in an additional two months of simple imprisonment.
Earlier, the court of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class)-IX, Ranchi, had acquitted the accused on August 8, 2025. The complainant filed a criminal appeal against this verdict; following a hearing, the Sessions Court set aside the lower court's order.
What is the case?
The case dates back to 2018. Santosh Kumar Chaudhary, proprietor of 'Variety Collections' (Variety Textiles) in Ranchi, filed a complaint against Sumit Agarwal—a partner at the Bokaro-based textile shop 'Memsahab'—regarding a bounced cheque worth ₹75,000.
According to the complaint, a Punjab National Bank (Bokaro) cheque dated April 20, 2018, was deposited at IDBI Bank, Ranchi, but was dishonoured on July 12, 2018, due to the reason "Payment Stopped by Drawer." After failing to receive a satisfactory response to the legal notice, a formal complaint was filed on August 27, 2018.
Key observations by the court
While hearing the appeal, the court observed that even if a partnership firm is not made a party directly, a partner can still be held personally liable if they are the authorized signatory. Failure to implead the firm is merely a curable defect and does not constitute grounds for dismissing the case.
The court further held that, given the admission regarding the signature on the cheque and the filling in of the amount, the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 would apply—namely, that the cheque was issued in discharge of a valid liability. The accused failed to prove that the cheque had been obtained from him forcibly.
Order to surrender within 15 days
The court has directed the accused to surrender before the lower court within 15 days. In the event of failure to surrender within the stipulated period, the lower court has been ordered to initiate appropriate legal and penal actions against the accused, including the issuance of a warrant.
