Bollywood producer’s plea against cheque bouncing sentence dismissed

The Mumbai Sessions court earlier this week upheld the conviction and sentence of Bollywood producer Abdul Samee Siddiqui in a cheque bounce case. Siddiqui has produced movies like ‘Horn OK please’ starring Nana Patekar, ‘Halla bol’ starring Ajay Devgan.

The detailed judgment of the Mumbai Sessions court is yet to be made available.

Siddiqui had challenged the order of the Bandra Magistrate court, which in 2019 had sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay compensation to the complainant, Ashfaq H. Mansoori.

The core issue stemmed from a monetary transaction between the complainant, Ashfaq H. Mansoori, and the accused, Abdul Sami Siddiqui, who represented his company, Sunrise Picture Private Limited.

Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh submitted that the complainant had invested Rs 5,50,000 in cash with the accused, allegedly after being promised a double return within 30 days. To discharge this liability, the accused issued a cheque for the same amount. The cheque was presented for payment but was subsequently dishonoured by the bank on July 3, 2013, with the reason “Funds Insufficient”.

Following the mandatory legal procedure, the complainant issued a demand notice, which the accused failed to comply with, leading to the filing of the criminal complaint.

The court acquitted the company on the technicality that the complainant had failed to serve the mandatory statutory demand notice to the legal entity. However, the case against Siddiqui was proved.

The defence attempted to rebut the case by arguing that the complainant’s cash transaction lacked essential documentary proof, such as a formal written agreement, receipt, or bank records showing the withdrawal of the cash.

The Magistrate firmly rejected this defence. The court observed that, by law, the very existence of the cheque raises a statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate court had ruled that factors like the lack of documentary evidence for the source of funds are not sufficient to rebut this legal presumption once it is drawn.

Consequently, the court found Siddiqui guilty and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay 5,50,000 as compensation to the complainant, plus 6% annual interest from the date of the cheque until the date of the judgment. In default of paying the compensation, the accused was ordered to undergo an additional one month of simple imprisonment.