LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2015)Decided 28 Apr 2015
Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2015
Justice J. Chelameswar · Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Background

The complainant, a theatre owner in Bangalore, alleged he lent Rs. 5 lakh to the defendant, a film distributor, in May 2006 to help fund a Tamil movie. When the defendant allegedly failed to repay, she gave him a cheque for the amount, which bounced with a "stop payment" remark. The defendant denied borrowing the money, claiming the cheque was actually a decade-old security cheque from a 1999 loan that had already been repaid, and that the complainant was using it out of ill will after a business dispute over the film's release. Trial and appellate courts convicted her, but the High Court acquitted her on revision, prompting the complainant's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that once the defendant admitted the cheque and her signature were genuine, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, came into play and the burden shifted to her to disprove it. The Court found her 1999-security-cheque story unsupported by any evidence, and noted it was inconsistent that she knew enough to instruct her bank to "stop payment" if the cheque were truly an old, forgotten document. The High Court's reliance on a printed pre-2000 date on the cheque leaf was held insufficient, by itself, to prove the cheque was actually issued in 1999. The Court concluded the accused failed to rebut the presumption and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence (fine of Rs. 5,55,000, with five months' simple imprisonment in default).

Lesson Learnt

If you sign and hand over a cheque, the law presumes it was for a real debt, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise with real evidence, not just a disputed, undocumented alternate story: simply denying the transaction isn't enough once the cheque and signature are admitted as genuine.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case