Pune Real Estate Partners Sentenced for Dishonoured Cheque

Pune: The court of additional chief judicial magistrate NR Gajbhiye on January 5 convicted and sentenced three partners, including two women, in a real estate company in Guru Nanaknagar, Pune, to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs20 lakh in a case involving a dishonoured cheque.

The court also convicted the realty firm as a juristic person, holding it criminally liable in the case. Lawyer Sanjay Bhojwani, representing the complainant, who had invested Rs1.23 crore in the company in 2017 for a period of four to five years, told the media, 'As the sentence was less than three years, the accused, who were present in court, sought suspension of the same for 60 days to enable them to appeal the decision.'

Magistrate Gajbhiye granted a suspension for 30 days, noting that the statutory appeal period is 30 days. One of the women partners in the company is known to the complainant, a resident of Wilson Garden. The complainant, who previously worked with a multinational firm and later became a teacher for three decades, was convinced by the partner to invest money in their firm for good returns.

When the amount was not returned despite repeated requests, the parties entered into a notarised memorandum of understanding (MoU) in August 2023, under which the accused agreed to make part payment through cheques. One of the cheques worth Rs11 lakh issued by the firm was dishonoured due to insufficient funds when presented for encashment. Following this, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice, but the amount was not paid within the prescribed period, leading to the filing of the complaint under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

The court noted that the accused admitted to issuing the cheque and executing the MoU. Relying on the statutory presumption under the NI Act provisions, the court held that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that the accused failed to rebut this presumption. The court rejected the defence contention that the cheque was presented prematurely, observing that the liability stood established and that the holder of the cheque was authorised under law to complete and present it.

While sentencing, the court observed that despite repeated demands and assurances, the complainant did not receive the amount and suffered financial loss. It held that imprisonment and a fine were warranted in the facts of the case.