138 for Signature Differs
Sanjeev
(Querist) 06 February 2009
This query is : Resolved
does any body have any cietation for any case u/s 138 of N.I. Act where case was accepted and decided on basis of "Signature Differs"/ "Signature Mismatched"
ARVIND JAIN
(Expert) 07 February 2009
IF FUNDS ARE THERE IN A/C NO COMPLAINT.EVEN IF COMLAINT HAS BEEN FILED YOU CAN PAY AND CLOSE THE CHAPTER.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 07 February 2009
Mr. Sanjeev wants citation. keep the query open.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 07 February 2009
Please see the following judgment. Some other judgments are also referred to therein.
1998 INDLAW AP 297
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]
G. Venkataramanaiah
v
Sillakollu Venkateswarlu and Another
BILAL NAZKI J
25 Sep 1998
BENCH
BILAL NAZKI
COMPARATIVE CITATIONS
1999 (97) CC 13, 1999 (105) CRLJ 1219, 1998 INDLAW AP 297
CASES REFERRED TO
Omprakash Bhojraj Maniyar v Swati Girish Bhide and Others 1992
Indlaw MUM 6292
G. F. Hunasikattimath v State of Karnataka and Others 1990
Indlaw KAR 174
THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED IN 3 CASE(S)
ACTS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881[s. 138]
Indian Penal Code, 1860[s. 420]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended by Act No. 25 of
2005 & Act No. 2 of 2006.)[s. 482]
CASE NO
Criminal Petition No. 3643 of 1998, decided on September 25,
1998.
LAWYERS
M. Unnam Muralidhar Rao, For The Second Respondent.
.JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by BILAL NAZKI J. :
BILAL NAZKI J. for the A complaint under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, is pending against the petitioner
before the learned Additional District Munsif Magistrate,
Kandukur. The complaint is sought to be quashed on various
grounds, some of them refer to the factual aspects of the
matter which this court will not entertain under the
provisions of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. However, two legal grounds have been taken which will be
considered by this court presently.
One of the grounds taken is that the complaint has been filed
beyond time. I have gone through the complaint. The cheque was
allegedly issued on March 6, 1998, it was presented to the
banker within six months and it was returned on March 9, 1998,
with the endorsement that the accused had closed his account
as early as on September 4, 1997. Notice was issued to the
accused on March 26, 1998, for making the payment. Payment was
not made and the complaint was made on May 8, 1998. Since the
notice was given on March 26, 1998, the cause of action would
accrue to the complainant on the expiry of 15 days clear
notice, because within 15 days the accused could make the
payment. That would mean the complainant had to wait for
taking further action till April 10, 1998. From April 11,
1998, onwards he could file the complaint and in terms of
section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
complaint has to be made within one month of the date on which
the cause of action arises under clause (c). In this case, the
cause of action arose on April 11, 1998. The complaint has
been filed on May 8, 1998. Therefore, the complaint is filed
within time and no interference is needed on this ground.The
second aspect of the matter is m
