A cheque bounced as the drawer of the cheque had given ‘stop cheque instructions’ to his bank. The payee of the cheque failed to send demand notice within the 30 days limit imposed by sub-clause (b) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Can the payee against present the cheque in his bank get it bounced and claim a fresh 30 day notice period under clause (b). As the cheque bounced originally due to ‘stop cheque instructions’ and not due to inadequacy of funds in the account, there is no other reason other than to beat the 30 day limit, for the payee to make a second try.
Q) Can the payee against present the cheque in his bank get it bounced and claim a fresh 30 day notice period?
A) Yes, absolutely.See Msr Leathers vs S. Palaniappan And Anr. September, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.261-264 OF 2002- By Supreme Court of India – Date of Judgment 26.09.2012.
As to the reason of chq bounce, though Sec 138 mentions insufficiency of funds as reason for chq bounce, successive court judgements have also applied sec 138 to be valid for ANY reason for chq bounce. So don't worry on that.
Please note it all depends on why stop payment was done? If I have not bought any product or service and have taken delivery or consumed it and cheque was paid as advance payment. I can always stop payment on not needing service or having some doubt about supplier or quality.
Only when cheque is issued for a supply of good or services already purchased then the bouncing of cheque on insufficient funds attrccts the 138 provisions. Stop payment in general is not crime.
In case of bouncing of cheque two offesnes can be made out- either 138 NI or IPC420
Stop payment is not bouncing of cheque.Please note. A drawer has all the rights to stop payment if he has valid and legal reasons to do so,For example I isue cheque to a broa dband servcie company to purchase a connection but change mind.I can always stop payment cheque.
@ Prasun Chandra Das: In the MSR Leather vs. S. Palaniappan case the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds. Drawer asked the payee to present the cheque again implying sufficient funds would be made available. Hence a second presentation was justified. In this case it was a categorical stop payment and hence no reason for another attempt.
@ DR. Rajendra Gupta: The question why the cheque was issued will come only after the case is admitted, not if it was stopped for non-compliance of notice under clause(b)
There is Supreme Court judgment that 'Stop cheque' instruction will also attract NI-138
@niranjan- who can file summary suit the payee or the drawer?
I request all the experts to clarify.
@ Prasun Chandra Das: 1. Repeated presentation of the cheque is allowed. 2. Stop cheque instructions will also attract NI:138. But have both the two together occured in any case? If so what was the judgment?