Probation of Offenders Act - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference

21Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which arise upon admission of a cheque's execution. It clarifies that these presumptions are rebuttable, but the initial onus is on the accused. The ruling also establishes that a violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not render a debt legally unenforceable for proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the appellant, Sanjabij Tari, concerning a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000 issued by the respondent, Kishore S. Borcar. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant contended that the amoun...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Not Every Act Against a Child is “Abuse”

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, ruling that a single, incidental act of hitting a child with a school bag during a scuffle, absent evidence of deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment, does not meet the legal definition of "child abuse." The Court also set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC, finding no intent to provoke a breach of peace. However, convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC were upheld, with the appellant granted probation. Facts Of The Case: On February 1, 2013, an incident occurred on the premises of St. Ann’s School in Goa involving the appellant, Santosh Khajnekar. He was alleged to have hit a child with a school bag belonging to his own son during a sudden altercation. The Fi...

“Supreme Court Rules on Food Adulteration Cases : Strict Punishment in Food Adulteration Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PoFA), 1954, bars probation for offenders convicted under the Act between 1976 and 2006, upholding strict sentencing to deter food adulteration. It also held that the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006’s repeal clause preserves penalties under PoFA, denying retrospective benefit of reduced sentences. However, citing discrepancies in evidence, the Court partially allowed the appeals by converting imprisonment into fines, balancing strict legal interpretation with equitable relief. The judgment reaffirms legislative intent to prioritize public health over reformative leniency in food safety violations. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India, ari...