The Mumbai sessions court earlier this week upheld the conviction and sentence of Bollywood producer Abdul Sami Siddiqui in a check bounce case. Siddiqui has made films like ‘Horn OK Please’ starring Nana Patekar and ‘Halla Bol’ starring Ajay Devgan.

The detailed judgment of the Mumbai Sessions Court has not been made available yet.

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

The main issue arose out of monetary transactions between the complainant, Ashfaq H. Mansoori, and the accused, Abdul Sami Siddiqui, who represented his company, Sunrise Picture Pvt. Ltd.

Advocate Ali Kashif Khan Deshmukh submitted that the complainant had allegedly invested Rs 5,50,000 in cash with the accused after being promised double returns within 30 days. To fulfill this liability, the accused issued a check of the same amount. The check was presented for payment but was later dishonored by the bank on July 3, 2013 due to “insufficient funds”.

Following the mandatory legal process, 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 technical ground that the complainant had failed to serve the mandatory statutory demand notice to the legal entity. However, the case against Siddiqui was proved.

The defense attempted to dismiss the case by arguing that the complainant’s cash transactions lacked the necessary documentary evidence, such as a formal written agreement, receipts, or bank records showing withdrawal of cash.

The magistrate strongly rejected this defence. The court held that, as a matter of law, the very existence of the check gives rise to a statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favor of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The magistrate court had ruled that factors such as lack of documentary evidence as to the source of the funds were not sufficient to rebut this legal presumption once it was drawn up.

As a result, the court found Siddiqui guilty and sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay Rs 5,50,000 as compensation to the complainant and 6% annual interest from the date of check till the date of judgment. In case of non-payment of compensation, the accused was ordered to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one month.