LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

PJANARDHANA REDDY (ADVOCATE & DIRECTOR)     22 October 2009

LATEST SC JUDGEMENT ON CHQ BOUNCE CASE

WHEN CHQ BOUNCES FOR THE REASON WHICH ATTRACTS SEC 138



Learning

 15 Replies

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     22 October 2009

I feel that this judgment would cause huge ramifications as many people would tend to issue a cheque and file a complaint that the same is lost and then try to get shelter under this judgment. Moreover, the judgment is very ambiguous and I am not sure as to how such a finding is arrived at. 

ghansham das (self employed engineer)     22 October 2009

Dear all Exprts,

I feel that after issue of a cheque whichis vital intrument for other side beneficiary to believe a good cheque, which in turn will make more hassles .to beneficiary.pls.

Cheque issued is bound to be paid with in 30 days/ not after judgments of 2-5 yrs???

its responsibility of justice and system to put forwards the truth not the simply orders/ judgments?

i feel so.

 

Deekshitulu.V.S.R (B.Sc, B.L)     23 October 2009

If the section was given the literal meaning, then under two circumstances only prosecution lies

1. Funda Insufficient

2. Exceds Arrangement.

Offence is not covered in other matters such as" stop payment, refer to drawer, cheque lost, account closed, etc"

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     23 October 2009

Dear All,

This topic is discussed in quite a good detail on the following thread.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/message_display.asp?group_id=7698

 

please read the same for further information.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant

 

 

Satyaprakash Sharma (Advocate & Legal Consultant)     25 October 2009

Upon perusal it is clear that the Judgment is in the nature of opinion as perceived from the facts and circumstances of the case and it does it create any binding precedent.

 

Paras 13 and 14 of same are worth citing.

 

"14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint petition does not disclose an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act."

 

 

Thus Judgment relates itself to the facts and circumstances of that particular case.

 

 

"13.   Before us a contention has been raised that the appellant did not have sufficient funds in his bank account. Such an allegation has not been made in the complaint petition. In any event, it was for the bank only to say so, as the complainant is not supposed to have knowledge in regard to the amount available in the account of the appellant."

Main impediment in the referred case was that the necessary ingredient for constituting offence under 138 i.e. contention as to insufficiency of fund was not alleged in the complaint petition. Second portion of para 13 of the judgment, somehow, seems to be

Ticklish as the complainant can not bring the banker to depose for him at the preliminary stage.

 

There are number of judgment of the Apex Court on the "STOP PAYMENT" issue and Trial Court can not refuse to entertain such complaints unless same relates to stop payment chequest for same reported lost by the drawer. In which case Complainant will have to do little more homework.


1 Like

K. Rajendra Prakash (Advocate)     21 November 2009

Thank You Mr. Janardhan Reddy and Satya Prakash

V. VASUDEVAN (LEGAL COUNSEL)     13 December 2009

 Dear Mr. Reddy, I profoundly thank you for providing this excellent latest judgement. By mistake, I pressed the wrong key for 'no thanks' - please ignore the same and accept my compliments.

vasudevan

R Trivedi (advocate.dma@gmail.com)     22 August 2011

We provide extensive help mainly to honest accused. NI138/139 is quite paiful for the accused if not handled properly. This is a kind of financial TADA and honest accused although has to pass through the trial once process is initiated still can save himself if properly defended. All the stages including reply to the notice is very important and can twist the case. Contact us with full details for help at advocate.dma@gmail.com for further assistance

jyotiprakash (PROPRITER)     05 May 2012

sir,need experts view on 138 neg.ins.act         The matter is like these after framing of charge case was held for cross examination but along with the plaint copy list of evidence was not provided to accused though the compliantent had mentioned the heading as list of evidence in plaint copy but it was empty, accused advocate asked the court to provide the list of evidence to them but it was ignored accused advocate urged that with out list of evidence it is not possible to cross examine the complianent the court has given the next date ignoring the request of accused advocate.on next date accused appoint the new advocate for the case court given the next date for cross examination on the adjourned date new appointed advocate reached late due to traffic jam though the accused told the stiutation of his new advocate but court close the cross examination chance or accused.       my question is  (1) can cross*xamination can be possible without evidence list?  (2) is there is any refered case for such stiutation? 

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     06 May 2012

First of all why accused is playing tricks of appointing and changins advocates like childs play.

In the process both the new advocate and court loose sympathy with the accused.

Any we are for the accused always with cheque bounce cases ,so file a revision against the closure of cross immediately.

Harish K. Chandak (Advocate)     06 May 2012

Dear Mr. Reddy, thank you for providing this excellent judgement....

V R SHROFF (Sr. ADVOCATE Bombay High Court Mob: 9892432152)     25 May 2012

Offence is not covered in other matters such as" stop payment, refer to drawer, cheque lost, account closed, etc"


I correct it " Closed a/c after the date of cheque do attract 138 ni. 
 
As far as STOLEN CHQ AND STAMP PAPER. :I HAVE MY OWN DOUBT. If there was theft, Why two papers only was stolen?? 
Will any  Theif  deposit stolen cheque in his a/c and send notice?? Can any prudent man digest such story??
 
Though I agree, the accused had not consented to issue cheque or deposit it in Bank, so 138 n.i. does not attract this act. But story of THEFT is imagiunary and false. 
Their past transaction can also prove, it is a defense story only. 

ramesh (wer)     25 May 2012

Dear Mr.Shroff

I didi not under stand you sentence,

I correct it " Closed a/c after the date of cheque do attract 138 ni.

 

Is it that, cheque issued after closing the account do  not attract 138 NI act?

 

Thanks

 

Ramesh

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     25 May 2012

This is a very old thread, post the problem on a new thread.

 

Isssue of cheque after closure of account may attract NI 138 and also IPC sections for breach of trust and cheating , BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE EXPERTISE OF THE ADVOCATE.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query