Cheue bouncing
AK Misra
(Querist) 26 August 2016
This query is : Resolved
A cheque bouncing case is at Evidence position.
1. Cheque was bounced on 04.03.14 as per complaint/Return Memo
2. Cheque is carrying date as 01/51/2014
In DDplace 01 in MM place 51 in YYYY place 2014.
Whether such ambiguity in date that is non existing date do not make the cheque invalid and the case to be non maintainable
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 26 August 2016
Definitely the issue raised by you is vital and interesting for wait and watch. Cheque bouncing case otherwise also depends upon various technicalities and this major lacuena cannot be ignored and definitely it makes the cheque bouncing complaint a serious matter. You have not mentioned the ground of bouncing and the reply of the accused against the notice issued by the complainant after having receipt of the intimation of its bouncing which have also very serious bearing on the case.
AK Misra
(Querist) 27 August 2016
Cheque was bounced with reason "Insufficient Funds.
2. In complaint it is mentioned that Date of Cheque is not properly mentioned in Cheque.
3. Question is that whether a Negotiable Instrument bearing an Indefinite Date can be treated as Valid Instrument at all to attract a case under Section 138.
4. Further it may indicate that Cheque is pertaining to month of May which is prematurily lodged.(01512014).
5.Notice reply was not given
AK Misra
(Querist) 27 August 2016
Cheque was bounced with reason "Insufficient Funds.
2. In complaint it is mentioned that Date of Cheque is not properly mentioned in Cheque.
3. Question is that whether a Negotiable Instrument bearing an Indefinite Date can be treated as Valid Instrument at all to attract a case under Section 138.
4. Further it may indicate that Cheque is pertaining to month of May which is prematurily lodged.(01512014).
5.Notice reply was not given
P. Venu
(Expert) 27 August 2016
'51' is an obvious mistake; it could be '1' or '5' i.e. January or May. If evidence could be led that month intended was May, this is a case of premature presentation of cheque.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 August 2016
Raise the point in proceedings.
What is the views of your lawyer?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 September 2016
As already replied, the benefit shall go in favour of the accused instead of the complainant.
Guest
(Expert) 01 September 2016
Dear Shri Mishra,
Can you please clarify, in what way you are concerned with the dishonered cheque? What I feel, it is merely an academic query of yours and you don't seem to have any such problem, either as a drawer, or as a drawee.
AK Misra
(Querist) 02 September 2016
This a real case.I am a new practitioner.I feel dates are more important in 138 cases.A material ambiguity in date is there.Whether it ceases to be a Negotiable Instrument where the mentioned date on Cheque do not exist or uncertain.
Guest
(Expert) 02 September 2016
Language of the notice and which sections of the NI Act are attracted matter much in the case. That you have not made any mention.
AK Misra
(Querist) 02 September 2016
Sir it is repeatedly mentioned that it is the Cheque Bouncing case u/S 138.Whether a vague dated cheque is a valid cheque or not.From which date its validity shall be counted?(01512014).
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 03 September 2016
What was the reply to notice?
What defense is taken in WS.
Whether there is proof regarding the date when cheque was issued / delivered?
The cheque was returned due to insufficient funds and not for the reason of ambiguity in date, if it was presented in due time after receiving cheque by complainant, the complainant may prove that this was intentionally done by accused to cheat and there existed no balance in the account of accused.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 03 September 2016
Dear Author,
The date on the cheque is a good defense, court may consider, but can also consider and decide on other factors also.
Guest
(Expert) 03 September 2016
Wrong date or shortage of funds, intentions of the drawer would have the deciding factor of the case.
