Ink colour change no defence: Mohali court on cheque bounce case against AAP MLA’s hubby

Mohali: A local court here has ruled that a change in the colour of ink used on a cheque could not be taken as a valid defence in cheque bounce cases.Judicial magistrate first class Parneet Kaur, Derabassi, made this observation while dismissing the defence plea and sentencing the accused to two years of imprisonment in a cheque bounce case.The court sentenced Shahbaz Singh Sohi, husband of AAP MLA Anmol Gagan Maan, to two years' imprisonment in connection with a cheque bounce case. The plea seeking leniency on the grounds of it being a first offence and lack of knowledge about transactions carried out by his partners during a property deal was also rejected by the court.During the proceedings, counsel for the accused argued that the cheque in question was misused, contending that the signatures of the accused were in a different ink from the rest of the contents filled on the cheque. This, the defence claimed, indicated that the accused did not fill in the cheque particulars.Rejecting the argument, the court held that the contention lacked merit as the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque. Referring to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court observed that when a signed blank cheque was handed over, it implied that the holder has the authority to fill in the details. The law recognises such an instrument as valid, and the holder is authorised to complete it, the court added.The court further clarified that there was no legal requirement mandating that the contents of a cheque must be filled using the same ink as the signature. "Merely the allegation of different ink used for signatures and other contents does not constitute a valid defence," the court noted, adding that once the signature was admitted, the drawer could not escape liability on this ground.Taking a serious view of the conduct of the accused, the court observed that there was a clear disregard for the law. It noted that the accused failed to clear the outstanding amount due to the complainant, and the cheque issued towards payment was dishonoured. Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused did not make the payment, forcing the complainant into prolonged litigation.The court highlighted the hardship faced by the complainant, who had been pursuing the case for the last seven to eight years, incurring significant expenses in the process, apart from suffering financial loss.Denying the benefit of probation, the court stated that granting such relief would defeat the intent of the law governing cheque dishonour cases. The judgment emphasised that the penal provisions were meant to ensure the credibility of financial instruments and to maintain trust in commercial transactions."In my considered view, the accused does not deserve the benefit of being released on probation, as such a measure would frustrate the legislative intent behind penalising cheque dishonour," the court observed in its ruling. MSID:: 129655547 413 |