Mohammad Irfan Salimmuddin Bagwan Vs Abhishek Kamalkishor Malpani (Bombay High Court)
The case concerns a revision filed by the accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proceedings arose from a complaint filed by a Chartered Accountant alleging non-payment of professional fees. The accused had issued a cheque towards payment, which was dishonoured with the remark “Account Blocked.” Following statutory notice and non-payment, a complaint was instituted before the Judicial Magistrate.
The trial court, after evaluating evidence, convicted the accused and imposed a fine of ₹4,72,000, with compensation directed to the complainant. The appellate court upheld the conviction. The accused then filed a revision, contending that the cheque was issued as security, there was no legally enforceable debt, and the cheque was blank with details filled by the complainant. It was further argued that the complainant’s inability to recall details of the transaction created doubt, and that dishonour due to “Account Blocked” did not attract Section 138.
The High Court examined the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, noting that interference is warranted only in cases of illegality, perversity, or patent error. Upon review of the record, the Court found that the professional relationship between the parties was undisputed and that the complainant had produced documentary evidence demonstrating services rendered and outstanding dues. The accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque but failed to produce evidence rebutting the presumption under Section 138.
