In a significant ruling reinforcing the strict liability framework around cheque dishonour offences, the Calcutta High Court on 19 November 2025 dismissed the criminal revision filed by Ma Kreeng Construction Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, upholding their conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, holding that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arising from the dishonoured cheque.
The dispute originated from a real-estate transaction in which the complainant, Dipak Saha, and his wife allegedly paid ₹68 lakh to the company for purchase of a 2,500 sq. ft. office space in north Kolkata. When the builders failed to hand over possession or execute the conveyance, they agreed to refund ₹1.10 crore under a Refund Agreement dated 19 May 2009. In partial discharge of this liability, the company issued a cheque of ₹25 lakh, which was dishonoured with the remark “Exceeds arrangement”.
The petitioners claimed that the refund agreement and cheque were forcibly extracted and that no such payment of ₹68 lakh had ever been made by the complainant. They argued that the Trial Court had mechanically convicted them without appreciating these aspects. However, the High Court held that beyond a bare allegation and a complaint lodged on the same day, the accused produced no corroborative material to prove coercion. Justice Gupta emphasised that mere allegations cannot displace the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
The Court further noted that the petitioners neither furnished bank statements nor any financial records to show that the complainant lacked capacity to make the payment. It relied on a series of Supreme Court rulings—including Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, and Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat—to underline that once the cheque and signature are admitted, the burden shifts heavily on the accused to prove a probable defence, not merely raise doubts.
Minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s cross-examination regarding the exact place of signing the agreement were held immaterial. The High Court also noted that the accused had earlier filed two other criminal revision petitions arising from similar refund cheques issued under the same agreement, both of which had already been dismissed by a coordinate bench.
Concluding that the findings of the lower courts were neither perverse nor illegal, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the directors (petitioners 2 and 3) to surrender within 15 days to undergo the sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment and payment of compensation as ordered by the Trial Court. A post-judgment plea for stay was also rejected.
The ruling once again reiterates the judiciary’s consistent stance that cheque dishonour cases cannot be derailed by unsubstantiated defences and that business transactions relying on negotiable instruments must be protected by strict compliance and accountability.
Ma Kreeng Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipak Saha & Anr.
Decision Date: 19 November 2025
Court: Calcutta High Court