Synergy and Solution Incorporation v. Vipin Dhopte – Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court of India

A significant case involving Synergy and Solution Incorporation and Vipin Dhopte has been decided by the Supreme Court of India, setting a precedent in legal matters. The Court’s ruling affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This judgement will have a lasting impact on future cases related to similar circumstances. #LegalCase #SupremeCourt #NIAct


  • The High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him, imposing a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).
  • The appellant did not dispute his signature on the cheque presented for clearance.
  • There is no evidence to show that the firm named Synergy and Solution Incorporation was a legitimate entity or that the account belonged to Vipin Dhopte.
  • The appellant did not deny that the other entries on the cheque were in his handwriting.
  • The Trial Court failed to properly analyze the evidence in light of the statutory presumption created by Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which favors the holder of the cheque and places the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.
  • Sufficient evidence on record indicates that the cheque was issued to settle a legally enforceable debt.
  • The respondent-complainant appealed the Trial Court’s acquittal decision to the High Court, which led to the appellant’s conviction.
  • The appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28.02.2012.
  • The sale consideration of the property was Rs.25,00,000/- with an advance payment of Rs.2,50,000/- made by the respondent-complainant.
  • The appellant-accused issued a cheque from the account of Synergy and Solution Incorporation for Rs.2,50,000/- to refund the earnest money, but the cheque bounced due to ‘Account Closed’.
  • The Trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused as the cheque was issued from the account of a firm in the name of Vipin Dhopte, not the appellant-accused, and the account was closed in 2006.

Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash


  • The parties had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28.02.2012.
  • Mr. G.L. Bajaj appeared as the learned counsel for the appellant-accused.
  • Mr. Sudheer Voditel appeared as the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.
  • The impugned judgment and evidence/materials on record were perused.
  • The respondent-complainant has received Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner as per the submission of Mr. Sudheer Voditel.
  • Additionally, Rs.20,000/- has also been paid towards costs to the respondent-complainant.
  • The total amount received by the respondent-complainant is Rs.2,70,000/-.

Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal


  • The appellant-accused has not disputed his signature on the cheque presented for clearance
  • The appellant’s claim that the cheque issued in the name of the Firm was removed from his office table is not supported by evidence
  • The respondent-complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- as an advance/earnest money to the appellant-accused as per the terms of the Agreement
  • The appellant-accused has not satisfactorily rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
  • There are no grounds warranting interference with the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
  • The High Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- and costs of Rs.20,000/-, which is deemed on the higher side considering the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
  • The amount ordered to be deposited is reduced to Rs.2,80,000/- plus costs of Rs.20,000/-

Also Read: Contract Termination and Equipment Forfeiture: Supreme Court’s Ruling


  • The appeal has been disposed of.
  • Rs.30,000/- to be disbursed to the respondent-complainant.
  • Rs.2,20,000/- to be returned to the appellant-accused along with any accrued interest.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001598-001598 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *