Anesthesia expert Dr. Jaswinder Singh was employed with Mann Mediciti Hospital between 2006 and 2011. He asserted that the hospital had ₹9.77 lakh owed to him in unpaid salary and operating shares, along with three months' salary of ₹3.75 lakh. While there were some partial payments, Dr. Singh claimed a substantial amount remained unpaid. To clear the dues, the hospital had given a cheque for ₹10 lakh in March 2013, but the cheque bounced with the bank stating that the "Drawer's Signature Differs."
Since the check was dishonored, Dr. Singh issued a legal notice to the hospital, which remained silent. He then lodged a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), dealing with cases of check dishonor.
During the hearing, Dr. Singh produced proof of working for the hospital, the outstanding dues, and the bounced check. The hospital, as a defense, complained that all the dues were being cleared and alleged that Dr. Singh had stolen and forged a blank check. But the court was perturbed that the hospital had lodged a police complaint for forgery and theft only when the cheque bounced and never provided any handwriting or fingerprint expert to substantiate their forgery claim, despite being provided with ample time.
The court held the hospital's defense to be unpersuasive, particularly since the accused himself confessed to signature discrepancies on various documents and did not take timely action or submit expert evidence. The trial court held the hospital and Dr. J.S. Mann liable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment along with a direction to pay the cheque amount with 9% per annum interest from the date of the cheque.
The sessions court, on appeal, also confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the hospital's last-minute attempt to present expert evidence and overturn the original ruling.
In short: The court held that Dr. Jaswinder Singh had not been paid in full for his services, the hospital cheque bounced as it had been signed with a wrong signature, and the hospital's forgery allegation was baseless. The verdict and conviction of the hospital and its director are upheld as they have sent a very strong message regarding cheque dishonor and employer responsibility.