The n.i.act sec. 138 or ipc 420
Pranav S. Thakkar
(Querist) 30 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir!
I m complainant saide lawyer.My client was given a cheque.. and the cheque is as " to pay self ".. so there cheque is given named as self. The cheque is not returned yet. but It is possible to get returned.
The other party purchased Goods against this cheque of 'self'. So, The complaint by dishonour of cheque of the cheque maintainable with Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Istrument Act 1881? Or The complaint to be filed under sec. 420 of IPC, 1860. as fraud by showing the cheque of self and purchased goods. then denied to make payment..!
So, which act to applicable in favour of client more effective?
bhaskar p
(Expert) 30 September 2011
sir the facts of your case will only draw s. 420 ipc and and not 138 case. so advise accordingly
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 30 September 2011
There is no use to ask presumptive questions as there is no cause of action to ask such questions. If such cheque bounces then file complain under section 420 IPC along-with 138 NI Act.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 30 September 2011
Section 138 N.I. Act would be quite inapplicable in the fact situation.
You have to complain and proceed only u/s. 420 IPC.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 30 September 2011
Both cases are made out.
But wait for the realisation of the payment/ bouncing of the cheque.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 30 September 2011
Dear Mr. Shonee,
I am afraid Sec. 138 does not get attracted since it is a "self cheque". The drawer and the payee are the same. If you have any other input please share.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 30 September 2011
I disagree with learned expert Shonee Kapoor.
138 NI Act can never get attracted where a "self cheque" has been issued. .
Pranav S. Thakkar
(Querist) 03 October 2011
Thanking you to all experts to share the opinion!
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 03 October 2011
S.138 is not applicable in this case. Self cheque will not go for clearing. So, the question of cheque return for insufficient fund will not happen.
S.420 IPC can be tried if you have strong grounds.
Niikhil C. Shirgaonkar
(Expert) 04 October 2011
Only an action u/s 420 can be initiated. Provisions of Section 138 are not attracted as the said cheque is self cheque.
Guest
(Expert) 07 October 2011
If the cheque No. has not been noted in both the buyer and seller's copies of the bill/ invoice for goods purchased, even success of sec.420 may also become doubtful.
Pranav S. Thakkar
(Querist) 10 October 2011
me have asked my client to isssue a copy of bill. And the case is to become strong by prima facie evidance under Sec. 420 is must. So, any other guideline is to be required if the party of my client fails to make payment within 15 days as he has told him.
Thanking you to all expert Advocates to concern to the case and guide well!
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 10 October 2011
Sec.138 Shall lie. The Language in the Cheque is "Pay to..........Self............or bearer.
Rupees............................(
Sd/-
So the bearer of the cheque by putting his signature on the back of the cheque, can file case for dishonour.
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 11 October 2011
Shri Arun ji,
I humbly disagree with you even on specimen showing by you.
Guest
(Expert) 11 October 2011
Arun ji,
I would also like to differ with your opinion, as the cheque is not drawn on the specific name of the "another person." Bearer is supposed to present cheque to the banker only on behalf of the drawer of the cheque. So, sec.138 would not get attracted.
