1. M/s. Meters & Instrument Pvt Ltd. v. Kanchana Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560
The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court.
2. H. Pukhraj v. D. Parasmal, (2015) 17 SCC 368
Having regard to the length of trial and date of issuance of the cheque, it is necessary to award reasonable interest on the cheque amount along with cost of litigation.
3. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari, (2015) 8 SCC 378
Once the accused has admitted the issuance of Cheque as well as signature on it, the presumption under section 139 would be attracted.
4. Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590
Directions given to trial Court to follow procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling under S. 138.
5. K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721
An appeal against an order of conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in-person or the counsel representing him, is not present.
6. Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, (2011) 4 SCC 729
Even assuming that the counsel for the accused does not appear because of the counsel’s negligence or deliberately, even then the court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel since an accused in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation the court should appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused.
7. K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458
Bare denial of the liability in reply notice is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof on the complainant to prove that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability.
8. Basavaraj R Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 740
The provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit. The provisions are based on the salutary principles of natural justice and the maxim “audi alteram partem” has been enshrined in them. Therefore, an examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has to be of utmost fairness.