The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has upheld the conviction of a businessman in a cheque bounce case filed by a Chartered Accountant (CA) over professional fees dispute.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase dismissed a criminal revision application, finding no legal or factual errors in the judgments delivered by the lower courts.
The case centered around a dispute between businessman Mohammad Irfan Salimmuddin Bagwan and Chartered Accountant Abhishek Kamalkishor Malpani. According to the complainant, Bagwan had engaged his professional services for audit and financial work related to his business operations. It was agreed that a fee of ₹2,50,000 would be paid for the services rendered.
To settle the dues, the accused issued a cheque in favor of the CA. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured by the bank with the remark “Account Blocked.” Following this, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice demanding payment. Despite receiving the notice, the accused failed to clear the dues, prompting the CA to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The trial court, after examining the evidence, convicted the accused in January 2022 and imposed a fine of ₹4,72,000, out of which a substantial portion was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. This decision was later upheld by the Sessions Court in October 2025, leading the accused to approach the High Court in revision.
Before the High Court, the accused argued that the cheque had been issued merely as a security and not against any legally enforceable debt. It was further claimed that the cheque was blank when handed over and had been misused by the complainant. The defence also questioned the applicability of Section 138, contending that the reason “Account Blocked” did not fall within the scope of cheque dishonour under the law.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, observing that the professional relationship between the parties was undisputed and that documentary evidence clearly established the services rendered by the CA. The Court noted that once the issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted, a legal presumption arises in favour of the complainant, which the accused failed to rebut even on a balance of probabilities.
Addressing the argument regarding the alleged misuse of a blank cheque, the Court relied on established legal principles holding that once a cheque is signed, it is immaterial who fills in the remaining details. The Court found no evidence to support the claim that the cheque was misused.
On the issue of the cheque being dishonoured with the remark “Account Blocked,” the Court clarified that the scope of Section 138 is not limited to specific phrases such as “insufficient funds.” It emphasized that similar situations, including account closure or stoppage of payment, have been judicially recognized as valid grounds for invoking the provision. Therefore, the dishonour in this case was held to be legally valid.
The High Court concluded that there was no illegality, perversity, or error warranting interference under its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.
Following the pronouncement of the judgment, the Court granted a six-week stay on the implementation of its order to allow the accused to approach the Supreme Court for further relief.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohammad Irfan Salimmuddin Bagwan Versus Abhishek Kamalkishor Malpani
Citation: JURISHOUR-592-HC-2026(BOM)
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2025
Date: 16/03/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Amit A. Yadkikar, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Yogesh Somani, Advocate
Read More: Fertilizer Classification Dispute | CESTAT Denies Tax Exemption for Boronated Calcium Nitrate
