Chandigarh: 51-year-old woman to spend 1 year in jail for bounced cheque

The court of judicial magistrate first class also ordered the convict, Ranjana Singh, from Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to settle the cheque amount — ₹2,50,999

A local court has awarded one-year rigorous imprisonment to a 51-year-old Uttar Pradesh woman in a 2017 cheque bounce case.

The court observed that the cheque in question had not been returned by the bank on the account of difference in signature, but on account of insufficient funds. (Getty Images/Purestock)

The court of judicial magistrate first class also ordered the convict, Ranjana Singh, from Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to settle the cheque amount — ₹2,50,999.

The case dates back to December 2017, when Singh, authorised signatory for M/s Kheti Bari Kendra, a pesticide distributor for Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai, had supplied the cheque to the company for pesticide stock.

But the cheque was dishonoured by the bank with the remarks “Funds insufficient”.

A legal notice was sent. However, Singh failed to pay the cheque amount to the company. Following this, a police complaint was filed by Rudraneel Bhardwaj, authorised representative for Godrej Agrovet Limited, posted at the company’s regional office at Mohali. It was alleged that Singh approached the company for purchase of pesticides and the stock was supplied, but payment was not made.

In court, counsel for the accused contended that the complainant company itself sent perishable goods and raised bills of these goods without her consent. She had never ordered any goods.

“Singh had previously given a blank cheque to the complainant company as security. The same cheque was misused by the company by forging her signature,” the counsel argued.

The court observed that the cheque in question had not been returned by the bank on the account of difference in signature, but on account of insufficient funds.

Observing that the company, through its counsel advocate Ravi Inder Singh, had succeeded in proving the case, the court convicted Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

“The convict dragged the complainant into uncalled for litigation. The miseries of the complainant can be well judged from the fact that apart from losing the amount, he is pursuing the present case for the last more than four years and incurring huge expenses,” the court observed.

Stating that the convict did not deserve the benefit of being released on probation, the court awarded her one-year rigorous imprisonment and also ordered her to settle the cheque amount.