LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

138 - defective notice

Page no : 2

Ashish Singla 098140 76600 (Cheque Victim's Lawyer. LUDHIANA (PB))     23 June 2013

Hi Experts,

If SC really given such a judgement , its easy now to manipulate the things on complainant part. In another words SC almost overruled the process of condonation of delay.  we people are now with the liberty to send more than one notices on same cheque and earn more.

Keep on enjoy.....

MARU ADVOCATE (simple solutions for criminal legal problems --     23 June 2013

Need not be very happy. SC has only said that the cheque can be presented as many times till its validity and after each bounce notice can be sent. Only last notice can be used to file case.


However in this case any proper advocate for accused can take benefit of the mistake in fist notice even after case is filed through last notice.

R Trivedi (     23 June 2013

Whatever the Hon SC Judge rule has to be followed but aggrieved party has the right to agitate the issue.


Once the cause of action accrued, that is non payment after 15 days of notice, then complaint must be filed within statutory time frame, no fresh cause of action can be created. Cheque can be dishonored during the validity period for as many times as possible but once the notice is given and 15 days have passed, then the new dishonor can only be made, if the drawer/accused submits in writing that in pursuance to the notice, the cheque may be again desposited and the same will be honored, in case it bounces again then the fresh cause can be created by sending the new notice. Complainant cannot get the cheque re bounced to get another cause of action in absence of any communication from drawer, If this is ruled by SC then the law itself is allowed to be manipulated by complainant which is illegal.


I am telling time and again that courts feel that cheque bounce and drawer is guilty, which is not the mandate of the legislature. Even the presumption is given only to holder not to payee. To become the holder, due amount has to be proved. It is blatantly illegal that presumption is given even on admittance of signature by the drawer.


Many a times it is seen that conviction under S.138 is granted, while with the same evidence civil recovery decree will not be possible. This is funny !! Criminal conviction has to be much more careful then the civil recovery, because presumption of innocence is the fundamental right.

Ashish Singla 098140 76600 (Cheque Victim's Lawyer. LUDHIANA (PB))     23 June 2013

I would like to clear from above judgement as per my observation that....

if after notice is served and drawer conveys to represent the cheque again than it can be represented for any number of times ( after even serving the legal notice) befor the limitation to file the case of originally served notice. The suit will be filed only on the basis of earlier served notice even same cheque has been represented after serving original notice.

NPKailaasam (ADVOCATE & Management Consultant)     24 June 2013

In 138,NI Case Only one time the Cause of action arose,when the notice to accused is sent and received by the accused and no other notice allowed,but in this case can send a rejoinder notice keeping the same date of first issued notice received by the accused and I am in the opinion of adv.Rajeev and rajendran.m is correct.

R Trivedi (     24 June 2013

The order is very clear, that if complainant fails to institute the case within stipulated period (15+30) from the date of notice, he can get the cheque bounced again and issue a fresh notice. The only condition the order puts is that the such dishonor must be within 6 months from the date of drawn or cheque validity whichever is earlier. There are no other ifs and buts.


What this order conveys that as long as validity/6 months criterion is satisfied complainant has the right. It kind of counts the limitation from the fag end of validity/6 months of the cheque date and gives suitable right to holder. order is ok and well argued. It almost re defines the cause of action citing non cognizable aspect of the cases under S.138 and also why an offender be let off for some bonafide thinking/lapses/accommodation of complainant.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register