2001 (10) TMI 1060 - SUPREME COURT

Conviction orders - Held that:- The High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the denials/averments in his reply dated 21-5-1993, were sufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the appellant complainant to prove that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability. This is an entirely erroneous approach.

The High Court erroneously set aside that conviction. Thus the impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the Magistrate by his order dated 21-3-1994, stand. The first respondent is granted one month’s time to pay the fine. In default thereof he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine if realised, ₹ 60,000 therefrom shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.