Delhi HC refuses to reopen defence evidence in Section 138 NI Act case, citing insufficient bank balance of ₹8,383 despite RBI closure.
Delhi HC Rejects Reopening of Defence in Cheque Bounce Case
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application to reopen defence evidence in a Section 138 prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that a bank balance of ₹8,383 at the time of dishonour rendered the cheque legally dishonoured irrespective of RBI-directed closure of the account. The court upheld the trial court's conviction and emphasized finality of proceedings under the summary trial regime.
The accused had claimed that the account was closed under RBI directions, asserting force majeure. However, the court noted that insufficient funds at the time of presentation remained the operative condition for dishonour under Section 138, regardless of subsequent closure.
"The statutory condition precedent—lack of funds—was satisfied at the material date,"the bench ruled, stressing that post-dishonour events do not cure the offence.
This decision limits defence strategies in NI Act cases relying on institutional closures or systemic issues. Practitioners should ensure early filing of defence evidence and focus on balance status on the exact date of presentation, as subsequent developments will not absolve liability under Section 138.
Citations
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138
- K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan, (1999) 7 SCC 510
