138 authorities

#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction Presentation of cheque to the Bank - Whether it is the drawee bank or the collecting bank? Held, 'the bank' is the drawee bank and not the collecting bank - Jurisdiction lies in a Court not at the place where cheque is presented for collection but at the place of drawee bank Complainant cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court by merely choosing to entrust the cheque for collection to a bank of his choice. (M.S.Santhoshkumar Vs K.G.Mohanan), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 097 (KERALA) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 284 (KERALA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice Presumption of service of notice - Presumption arises when notice is sent by registered post Even when a notice is received back with an endorsement that the party has refused to accept, still then a presumption can be raised as regards the valid service of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Delay - Condonation - Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition at a later stage. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Necessary ingredients of the offence are : (1) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) it was dishonoured; (iv) a notice was served on the person sought to be made liable and; (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Service of notice - Thirty days time ordinarily must be held to be sufficient for service of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to a correct address - Service of notice has to be presumed. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 027 (S.C.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post to correct address of the drawer - Notice returned with endorsement must be presumed to be served to the drawer and the burden to show that the drawee had managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement letter on the complainant and affixed thereof have to be considered during trial on the background facts of the case. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 027 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Director - A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu

& Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - Resigned before cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque - To constitute offence u/s 420 IPC fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage - When the post dated cheques were issued the accounts were operative - Even assuming that the account was closed subsequently the same would not mean the appellant had an intention to cheat when the post dated cheques were issued. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Awarded and paid - A duty is cast upon civil courts to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation - Superior Courts can take into consideration such payments received even after passing of decree by trial Court. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Twice the amount of cheque - Court is competent to award sentence of fine equivalent to double the amount of cheque - Provision of S.29 Cr.P.C. which limits the amount of fine to Rs.5, 000/- is not applicable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sandeep Mittal Vs Pardeep Bhalla), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 116 (P&H) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Amendment sought with regard to date of presentation of cheque with the Bank as well as memo of dishonour of cheque by the Banker of the accused - Held, complaint was defective and this was not a mere technical defect - Such a defect goes to the root of the matter which cannot be allowed to be amended. (V.K.Gupta Vs Manjit Kaur), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 139 (P&H) #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by payee - Power of attorney holder cannot be said to be either the payee or the holder in due course - Summoning order set aside. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such

Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #20: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Plea that date of service of notice not mentioned in complaint - Notice sent by registered post - There is presumption of delivery of letter, properly addressed and sent by registered post unless contrary is proved - Held, there is no force in the contention of accused. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of Company, Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50, 000/- - Revision against - Cheque amount Rs.35, 300/- - Accused agreeable to pay the compensation double the amount of cheque immediately - Accused to pay Rs.70, 000/- as compensation to complainant and to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court. (Biswanath Singhania Vs Kumud Ranjan Sinha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 118 (CALCUTTA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Held, it would be too harsh on the petitioner to non suit him merely for his non appearance on one date - Non appearance not intentional - Complaint restored. (Purushotam Mantri Vs Vinod Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 064 (P&H) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability of another person - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 of the act is made out. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - 'Account closed' Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is dishonoured on ground of account closed, payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. (Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures does not tally with the specimen - Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is dishonoured on ground of 'signatures does not tally with the specimen', payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. (Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file the complaint only against the firm - A firm cannot possibly contend that although it has been named as an accused it need not participate in the proceedings only because the person incharge of the affairs of the company at the time of commission of the offence has not been named as an accused. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere reference in the complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured cannot render the complaint bad in law or not maintianble. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file a complaint only against the firm - Complainant may choose not to proceed against the individual partners as accused either because he is not aware as to who are the partners or is not interested in proceeding against the partners apart from the firm. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Reduction in sentence Cheque amount of Rs.21 lakhs - Accused convicted and sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay compensation of Rs.42 lakhs - Accused 77 years old and having health problem - Compensation reduced to Rs.21 lakhs and sentence reduced till rising of Court. (R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through courier - Notice received back with endorsement of `Refusal' - There is presumption of service. (R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Accused summoned - Some evidence recorded - Quashing of complaint sought at that stage Held, appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.PC. for quashing of the complaint. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Delay - Accused summoned and thereafter some evidence recorded - Held, once the evidence is already recorded in the complaint then it is not a fit case for quashing the complaint. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A civil suit for recovery of money as well as a complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Self drawn cheque - Given to complainant in discharge of legal liability - Self drawn cheque comes within the expression 'Holder in due course' - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Defence - Failure on the part of the accused to establish his case does not automatically be a ground to hold that the prosecution has proved its case - U/s 101 Evidence Act the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case and such burden is not discharged by showing that the accused's case is improbable or false. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Consisting of two partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Pleading as to requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with - In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by way of security - Plea that dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability - There was interpolation in amount written in numbers - Fact of interpolation corroborated by expert evidence - Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving satisfactory reasons for disbelieving fact of interpolation - Set aside - Matter remanded for decision afresh. (Sudhir Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc. etc.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S.C.) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - (Smt.Shamshad Begum Vs B.Mohammed), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 567 (S.C.) #21: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice sent under certificate of posting at correct address - Notice not received back - There is presumption of service of notice. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Civil suit also filed for recovery of the cheque amount - Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act cannot be quashed on ground of filing of civil suit for recovery of cheque amount. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning on basis of photocopies of cheque and bank memos - Summoning order suffers no illegality. (Laiq Ram Vs

Bal Krishan), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (H.P.) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is both technical as also one involving no moral turpitude. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons - Magistrate can dispense with personal attendance of accused at the time of issuance of summons - There is no impediment whatsoever for a fair and efficient trial if only a summons u/s 205 Cr.P.C. is issued in all prosecutions u/s 138 of the Act. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons - When summons are issued u/s 204 Cr.P.C. then at any stage before actual appearance of accused or after such appearance, power u/s 205 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - In such a case examination of accused u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. can also be dispensed with. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - At stage of defence evidence, there is no obligation for accused to personally appear. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - Such an accused when directed only to appear to receive judgment must be held to be person to whom the benefit of S.389(3) is available. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Absence of complainant Mere absence of a complainant does not entail consequences u/s 256 Cr.P.C. - Presence of complainant can only be insisted if progress of the case demands such appearance - On all other dates from the date of filing of complaint to date of judgment he can also be permitted to be represented by his counsel. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - In a prosecution u/s 138 of the Act discretion u/s 205 Cr.P.C. must be exercised in favour of accused. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - In such a case plea of accused can be recorded through his counsel. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in favour of proprietorship firm - Complaint filed by proprietor of firm - Accused denied that complainant was proprietor of the said concern - No evidence adduced that complainant was the proprietor of the firm in whose favour the cheque was issued - Held, complainant was not entitled to file the complaint - Accused acquitted of all the charges. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - If accused is acquitted or accused is convicted and sentenced with a fine only then it is not necessary to insist on personal presence of accused to receive judgment - However, if sentence is one of substantive imprisonment, then accused can be directed u/s 205(2) Cr.P.C. to appear personally. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Court may enforce order of payment of compensation by imposing sentence in default - Contention that the substantive sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation could not have been imposed rejected. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #14: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint Payment not made at all - It causes no prejudice to the accused - Conviction upheld. (Krishan Gupta & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (CALCUTTA) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque - Bank account attached by Court - Accused not liable - Act of attachment of bank account of drawer cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the drawer. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque without having sufficient balance in the account of the drawer does not by itself tantamount to the commission of an offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque dishonoured with endorsement 'present again' - Held, complainant need not to wait to present the same again and can proceed with the prosecution of the accused. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is committed. (Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #22: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Non mention in complaint as to reply given to statutory notice - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #23: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - In reply to notice offer made to make payment by giving other cheques - It is a conditional offer - Cannot be said that drawer was ready and willing to make the payment - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground - Plea to be raised during trial. (Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company - No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI)

#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque without consideration - Onus to prove is on person who asserts so - Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness - Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Cheque amount Rs.15, 000/- - Sentence of 1 year awarded to accused reduced to period of 2 months already undergone - Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.30, 000/- to the complainant. (Charanjit Singh Vs Brij Mohan Gupta & Anr.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (P&H) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (P&H) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Magistrate cannot order restoration of complaint even if complainant shows very good reasons for his failure to be present on the date of dismissal of complaint - The only remedy available to the complainant is to approach High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of dismissal of complaint. (Om Parkash Vs M/s.Golden Forest India Ltd. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Wrong date noted by counsel - Reason for non appearance, held, bonafide - Complaint ordered to be restored. (Om Parkash Vs M/s.Golden Forest India Ltd. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) #5: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the place where cheque was given in respect of transactions made at that place has jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mahesh Jain & Anr. Vs Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 132 (ORISSA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping director - If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court - A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company - Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court - Petition to quash summoning order dismissed. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Parties compromised - A new cheque in lieu of cheque dishonoured issued - Second cheque also dishonoured - Complaint on the basis of second cheque is not maintainable as second cheque issued in terms of compromise does not create a new liability - As the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt. (Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (S.C.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. (Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Death of complainant - An application filed to bring on record L.R's - Application not pressed despite numerous hearings - None represented the complainant on 14 dates - Accused attended Court

for not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant - Accused rightly acquitted by trial Court. (S.Rama Krishna Vs S.Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 291 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 891 .(S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2066 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque alleged to be issued at the time of joining the committee being run by complainant - Financial condition of complainant not such as to lend an amount of Rs.80, 000/- - No offence is committed u/s 138 of the Act when such a cheque is dishonoured. (Naranjan Lal Sharma Vs Usha Bansal), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 209 (P&H) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint against Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company - It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused summoned being Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company - Held, that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs J.K.Verma & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - S.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability - A legal fiction has been created thereby The statute being a penal one, should receive strict construction - It requires strict compliance of the provision - Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative - Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Accused directed to pay double the amount of cheque instead of payment of cheque amount as ordered by Courts below and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time - Once cause of action has accrued to the complainant at the time of dishonour of cheque, it is not open to complainant to present the cheque for the second time to bring the matter in limitation - Complaint quashed. (Satish Kumar Vs Mohan Singh Gidda), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (P&H) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Govt. company - BIFR declared the company sick - No impediment in initiating proceedings u/s 138 of the Act against company or its Directors. (M/s.Hindustan Cables Ltd. & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of summoning order - Magistrate cannot recall the summoning order - The only course available to an aggrieved

person is to challenge the summoning order by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (M/s.Hindustan Cables Ltd. & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (DELHI) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of higher amount than amount of cheque - It is not a statutory notice - Complaint quashed. (Gaurav Singh Rathore & Anr. Vs M/s.Tai-Pan Traders Ltd.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 334 (P&H) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 617 (P&H) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non appearance of complainant - Dismissal in default - Held, that great prejudice will be caused to complainant if his complaint goes undefended particularly when the amount involved is Rs.4.27 lakhs Complaint restored. (M/s.Ambassador Cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company declared sick by BIFR - Held, S.22 of SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case u/s 138 of the Act - Summoning order upheld. (M/s.Aefloat Textiles (India) Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s.Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (BOMBAY) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Public servant - Sanction for prosecution - Cheque issued by M.D. State Transport Corporation towards payment of instalments or payment of loan - M.D. was performing only his official functions - Sanction for prosecution is mandatory before cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act is taken - Prior sanction for prosecution not taken - Summoning order passed by Magistrate u/s 138 of the Act set aside. (K.Suresh Vs M/s.Lloyds Finance Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (DELHI) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed and verified by power of attorney holder - It is a defective complaint as complaint must be signed by the complainant - However, it is a curable defect - Death of complainant before curing said defect - Power of attorney holder sought leave of Court to prosecute the complaint on her behalf - Held, that when the initial complaint itself was defective there arises no question of substitution of legal heirs - Summoning order quashed. (Mr.Roy Joseph Creado & Ors. Vs Sk.Tamisuddin), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 443 (BOMBAY) #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Post dated cheque - Director who resigned before presentation and dishonour of cheque cannot be prosecuted. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ink used in filling the body of cheque different from ink used in appending signatures - Held, that filling up of the blanks in cheque by itself does not amount to forgery. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - For application of the provision of S.138 of the Act three conditions required to be fulfilled are : (i) that the cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn; (ii) that the payee makes a demand of the amount by giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour of the cheque; and (iii) that the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice - It is only when these three conditions are satisfied that the provisions of section 138 would be attracted. (Tajuddin M.Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre mature complaint -

Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by drawer of cheque Complaint not maintainable. (Tajuddin M.Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (BOMBAY) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company - In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Existence of a debt or legally enforceable liability - Can only be decided after parties lead evidence - Proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of non existence of debt or legally enforceable liability. (Abhay Prabhaker Lele Vs Raosaheb Mahaveer Chimanna & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (BOMBAY) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 056 (BOMBAY) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttable presumption - Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person

who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in default - Complaint fixed for recording preliminary evidence - Non appearance of complainant Instead of dismissing the complaint in default Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to another date. (Danvanti Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 007 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - Post dated cheque issued - Amount not reflected in Income-tax return - Loan given from personal account - For this reason complaint might not have felt the necessity to reflect the same in his income-tax return No interference in order of conviction. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.1.82 lakhs - Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000/- Accused facing trial since 1.9.2005 and has undergone more than 3 months of actual sentence Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non bailable warrants issued against accused as they failed to appear inspite of many opportunities given to them Case was fixed for recording statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Complaint dismissed for inability of police to execute non bailable warrants entrusted to them on the ground that complainant did not take steps for execution - Held, that if non bailable warrants entrusted to police are not executed, Court has to take steps to see that they are executed by taking such steps as are available to it - Appeal allowed - Order of Magistrate dismissing complaint set aside. (Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Cotton Company Vs State of A.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 645 (A.P.) #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint not stating that on the date of commission of offence, applicant was in any way in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against applicant quashed. (Vinod Hingorani Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to six months and fine of Rs.1, 25, 000/- imposed and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days - Suspension of sentence - Sentence suspended on condition of depositing amount of Rs.85, 000/- out of fine of Rs.1, 25, 000/- Condition modified and accused directed to deposit Rs.25, 000/- only. (Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (RAJASTHAN) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued for time barred debt - Attracts penal provision of S.138 of the Act - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds - Accused convicted. (Sooryan Vs Sreedharan), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KERALA) #23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in revision - Offence under Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence -

Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal for non appearance of complainant when complaint was fixed for recording preliminary evidence Provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. comes into play only when the summons have been issued on a complaint for the appearance of the accused - It is not applicable at the preliminary stage when only the complaint has been filed and the preliminary evidence is yet to be recorded. (Danvanti Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 007 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Presumption is in favour of holder of cheque that it was issued to discharge debt or other liability - Plea that cheque was stolen and misused can only be proved during trial - Proceedings cannot be quashed. (Karanam Visweswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 038 (A.P.) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Payment after commission of offence - Once the offence is committed, any payment made subsequent thereof, will not absolve the accused of the liability of the criminal offence, though in the matter of awarding of sentence, it may have some effect on the Court trying the offence. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Bandekar & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal - Refusal to accept has always been considered as good service. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Bandekar & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Termination of service of employee - Accused No.1 Managing Director of company, accused No.2, and partner of firm, accused No.3 - Complainant proved that accused issued the cheque to meet the liability of the company and firm whose Managing Director/partner he was - Accused failed to prove that he stood as surety by issuing the said cheque - Such plea not put forward to the complainant and it was taken as an afterthought - Accused cannot escape his conviction - Accused directed to pay compensation of Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo SI for 3 months. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Bandekar & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Notice after dishonour of cheque issued from place `H' - Held, Court at place `H' has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the lis between the parties. (M/s.A.K.Desai & Co. & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H)

#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity and on each dishonour of cheque a fresh right is created - Cause of action accrues only when notice is issued - Once cause of action accrues then complaint has to be filed within period of limitation. (M/s.A.K.Desai & Co. & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque dishonoured for the reason 'sign jointly' - Evidence on record that at the time of dishonour of cheque there were not sufficient funds in the account - Once it is so it comes within the mischief of S.138 of the Act - Matter to be finally adjudicated upon on appreciation of evidence to be led by the parties - No ground to quash complaint. (M/s.A.K.Desai & Co. & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - As per agreement of parties one month's notice was required to be given prior to presenting the cheque in bank Notice not given - Enforceability of the debt is not to be tested on touchstone of the procedure provided by the parties in an agreement - Defence of not giving one month's notice prior to presenting the cheque in bank not legally tenable - Order of acquittal set aside - Accused convicted. (Shyam Gopal Gupta Vs Sanjeev Bhargava), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 072 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 063 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Debtor should seek the creditor and pay the debt to him at the place where he resides - Cheques payable at place `P' where complainant permanently resides - Held, it is the Court at place `P' which has jurisdiction to try the complaint. (Nutan Damodar Prabhu & Anr. Vs Ravindra Vassant Kenkre & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 010 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - By an order of court bank was not to make any payment from out of accounts of company - An employee of the company who issued cheques on behalf of the company cannot be made liable u/s 138 of the Act. (Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 099 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - 'Not negotiable' - As per provision of S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act there is no distinction between an ordinary cheque and a cheque with an endorsement 'Not negotiable' - Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground. (M/s.Bezawada Motor Stores & Anr. Vs Smt.Sarala Doulat Ram & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (A.P.) #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Complaint against company and its Directors - Plea of petitioners that they were not Directors at the time when cheque was issued - Form No.32 under the Companies Act, 1956 placed on record but there is nothing to show as to when the same was received by the Registrar of Companies or to show any receipt or proof that it was in fact submitted to the office of Registrar of Companies - Petitioners to lead evidence during trial to prove that they were not Directors of the Company at the relevant time - No case made out to quash proceedings - Petition dismissed. (Prafulla Maheshwari & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (BOMBAY) #16: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Quashing of - Prima facie ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act satisfied - Plea that amount was disputed and that by practising fraud and dishonesty complainant presented the cheque to be proved during trial - Order taking cognizance suffers no infirmity or illegality - Court in such cases should insist on presence of accused on dates on which appearance is necessary Personal appearance of accused not to be insisted. (Parmod Kumar Rath Vs M/s Aditya Steel Industries Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (ORISSA) #17: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption of personal appearance of accused - Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act can be disposed of mostly on the basis of documents and other evidence - In such a case presence of accused on all dates is not necessary and Court should only insist on presence of accused on the dates on which appearance of the accused in Court is necessary for effectual adjudication. (Parmod Kumar Rath Vs M/s Aditya Steel Industries Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (ORISSA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Joint account - Account could be operated by anyone - Non signatory of the cheque is not liable for the offence committed u/s 138 of N.I. Act - Under S.138 of the Act, the person who is drawer of the cheque can only be prosecuted and not the other except the contingencies mentioned u/s 141 of the Act. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Joint account of husband and wife - Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability - Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque - Held, wife is not liable Proceedings against wife quashed. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties compromised during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issue of process - If complainant makes prima facie averments in complaint such as : (a) Drawing of a cheque in favour of the complainant and the cheque having been signed with a specific amount; (b) Dishonour of cheque and intimation thereto by the concerned bank in writing; (c) Issuance of demand notice by the Payee and its receipt by the drawer; (d) Failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice and (e) The existence of debt or other legally enforceable liability against which the cheque was drawn - Court has no choice but to issue process order on recording verification of the complainant. (Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr. Vs Subhash Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Existence of debt or any other liability, loss of cheque and complaint to the bank and police station and denying the liability of the cheque amount - All these issues can only be decided after parties adduce evidence - No case made out to invoke jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr. Vs Subhash Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - Repayment in cash without any receipt - Production of account books - Held, it is for the accused to prove that he had made payment in cash - Documents required to be produced are not at all relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties - Petition dismissed. (G.S.Mayawala & Anr. Vs Om Prakash Mittal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (DELHI) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of account books - Can be ordered only when it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial. (G.S.Mayawala & Anr. Vs Om Prakash Mittal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (DELHI) #25: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheques returned for revalidation of dates - Accused No.3 changed the dates of cheque and signed the same Previously cheque was signed by two signatories on behalf of the company and later on after revalidation of dates it was signed by one of the Directors who was also one of the authorized signatory who had earlier signed the cheques - Held, that revalidation of cheques by change of dates is not unknown in commercial transactions - Accused Nos.1 & 2 therefore liable to be prosecuted. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence by Advocate - When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT

JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant during pendency of complaint - Son came forward to continue the proceedings - He is competent to conduct the proceedings initiated by the deceased father - Dismissal of petition on death of complainant set aside and son allowed to continue the proceedings. (Gene Vs Gabriel), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 172 (MADRAS) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration - Blank cheques issued and later they were filled - Fact that column relating to payee filled up later but the same does not amount to material alteration. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Only inference to be drawn is that payee is the complainant bank only. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Cheque return memo is conclusive proof to show that cheques were presented for payment - Acquittal could not be sustained. (Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computers taken on rent Blank cheques given - Destruction of computers by accidental fire - Dishonour of cheque - No averment that it was due to negligence of accused - Accused is not liable u/s 138 of the Act Bailee in absence of any special contract is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken care of it. (Pyramid Finance Ltd. Vs Ramkrishna Iyer), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (BOMBAY) #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Cheque issued to pay the time barred debt - It revalidates the debt - By not making the cheque payment inspite of demand, accused commits an offence. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara Reddy & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through registered post at correct address - Received back with postal endorsement 'Addressee not present at time of delivery' - It is due service. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara Reddy & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint dismissed on lack of proper authorisation to file complaint - Finding given that it was a legally enforceable debt - Appeal against - Accused is entitled to assail finding in absence of any appeal or revision filed by him - Finding as to legally enforceable debt upheld - Finding on proper authorisation to file complaint not sustainable - Accused convicted. (Surana Securities Ltd. Vs G.Kamalakar & Anr.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 616 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Conviction - Sentence of fine and compensation - Both cannot be imposed at a time - Matter remanded for imposing effective sentence. (Nathuram Sharma Vs Rajendra Goyal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 261 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT

CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time, the offence was committed - One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act - Held, that second proviso to S.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided - Accused Nos.5 & 6 discharged. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted - The purpose would be served if the averments, by whatever words used, makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #15: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed by authorised representative of the company - Held, that when complaint is filed in the name of a incorporeal person it is necessary that natural person represents such juristic person in a Court - The company being a juristic person shall be dejure complainant, while the person representing the company will be the defacto complainant - This does not and cannot change the complexion of the case because the complaint filed before the Court will be by a company Complaint could be filed u/s 138 of the Act by the authorised representative of the company. (Rajendra Agarwal Vs M/s Xpro India Limited, Biax Division & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 651 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 125 (CALCUTTA) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 10 days in filing complaint - Application for condonation of delay not filed - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process - Order taking cognizance and issuing process set aside - Case remanded Magistrate directed to give an opportunity to complainant to file a petition to condone the delay and the same be decided after giving notice to accused and giving him an opportunity of hearing. (Nataraj @ T.Natarajan Vs P.Venkatachalam), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (MADRAS) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal in default Appellant not disclosed the nature of domestic work which detained the appellant from appearing in the Court - Nor the appellant disclosed where he had gone - In absence of any such averment made in the exemption application, the court could not exercise the discretion of granting exemption. (Delhi Finance Company Vs Renu Aggarwal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (DELHI) #18: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Petitioner resigned as Director of company - Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.32 - Held, that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S.303(2) of the Companies Act - This document is not a public document in terms of S.74 Evidence Act - Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act - Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' - The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial - Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Accused sentenced to RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence - Cheque amount Rs.2, 37, 000/- - Sentence modified - Accused directed to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence. (K.Vijayan Vs Appukutti), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 412 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 407 (MADRAS) #20: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in favour of `Self' - Cheque issued by accused to complainant for liability of debt due on him - Cheque shows

that it was bearer also as the words `or bearer' not cut by accused - Respondent became holder of cheque in due course - Contention that cheque was not drawn for any specific person and as such provision of S.138 of the Act not applicable cannot be sustained . (Babu Lal Vs Kewal Chand), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 432 (M.P.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (M.P.) #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Drawer of cheque to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice - Period is to be reckoned from date of first notice - It is a matter of evidence as to when first notice is deemed to have been given i.e. whether the one given by registered post or the one served personally - It is also a matter of evidence whether postman went to deliver registered notice or whether he left information that notice can be collected - Averments of the petitioner cannot be decided without evidence Petition dismissed. (Rajendra Prasad Gupta & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (ALLAHABAD) #22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Company - Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other - Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #23: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Dishonour of 3 cheques of Rs.25, 000/- each - Conviction - Accused sentenced to undergo 2 months RI and a fine of Rs.5, 000/- imposed with default sentence - Order modified - Accused directed to pay compensation twice the amount of cheque to the complainant. (K.Deenadayalan Vs A.K.Sumathi), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 654 (MADRAS) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of double of the amount - Notice if does not specify the amount in terms of the cheque, the same does not satisfy the legal requirement - Complaint dismissed - Order upheld. (Gurnam Singh Vs Prabh Dayal Saini), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (P&H) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Filed within two days of refusal to receive notice - Complaint is premature. (M/s. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (S.C.) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused - Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY)

#4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures alleged to be forged - Application for production of bills and challans by complainant - Dismissal of application - Order not proper - However, order not interfered with in revision as accused participated in trial and cross examined all witnesses - Accused examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and matter reached final argument stage - At that stage no interference warranted. (Murari Mohan Kejriwal Vs Sharawan Kumar Kejriwal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 558 (CALCUTTA) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right, that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right - Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Defence evidence - Accused should be given opportunity to bring his evidence on record in defence - He should be given assistance of Court with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #8: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default before taking cognizance but after hearing arguments for taking cognizance Restoration application filed within 13 days - Complaint restored. (Kailash Chand Agarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 883 (RAJASTHAN) #10: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Complainant appeared in Court in later part of the day - Held, dismissal of complaint was erroneous - Order of dismissal set aside. (Hind Syntex Ltd. Vs M/s Shree Mangal & Ors.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 6 (M.P.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 130 (M.P.) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back unclaimed - In case of unclaimed notice the deemed service of notice is to be reckoned from the date of postal endorsement and not from the date the undelivered notice is received back by the sender. (Ashwani Kumar Julka Vs Lt.Col.Parthojit Choudhary (Retd.)), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 513 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 11 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - 'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' - Meaning - When Director is also executive, he is an officer with executive powers, charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business - No fault can be found in the complaint. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Service of notice by hand delivery - Refusal - Presumption of service cannot be raised as the same is not effected in terms of the statute. (M/s. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (S.C.) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of liability Cheque issued for settlement of trade liabilities - Forms valid consideration - Dishonour of cheque justifies penal action u/s 138 of the Act. (Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Partner - Liability - There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Account closed Complaint is maintainable. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 593 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Receipt of information from Bank - It can be in any language and through any mode - written, electronic, fax or even verbal. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 593 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to pay liability of brother - Cheque dishonoured - No legally enforceable debt or other liability Complaint quashed. (Subburam Vs Raja Guru), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors - Directors signing the cheque - They cannot escape their liability on the ground that they resigned after signing the cheque but before the cheques were deposited in the bank. (M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 103 (DELHI) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company Secretary filing complaint on behalf of company - Specific authorisation for filing each case is not required when there is general authorisation to an officer of the Board of Directors. (M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 103 (DELHI) #21: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque issued for part payment of outstanding bills - Cheque dishonoured - By issuing notice demand made of payment of pending bills and not cheque amount - Held, notice is not valid. (M/s.Rahul Builders Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - An omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque does not subserve the requirement of law. (M/s.Rahul Builders Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pendency of civil suit for recovery of cheque amount - Not a bar for proceeding u/s 138 of the Act - Provision of S.138 of the Act is an additional criminal remedy over and above the civil remedy available. (Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Notice again issued - Complaint filed on the basis of second notice - Held, cause of action to file complaint accrues only once - Complaint should have been filed after issuance of the first notice - Complaint on the basis of second notice is

beyond the period of limitation - Complaint quashed. (Umesh Tandon & Ors. Vs Indian Technological Products), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (DELHI) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advocate - Money lending - Absence of pleading that accused is not legally liable to pay the amount - On the other hand it is pleaded that the transaction itself was void being in violation of the Money Lenders Act - Held, the matter can be taken in defence - Plea does not appear to be sound - The circumstance that the complainant is an Advocate and that he had lent some amounts to the accused, itself would not lead to an inference that the agreement was hit by unlawful consideration or that he was indulging in money lending business. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Condonation - Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of ExPresident of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A duly authorised power of attorney can file complaint on behalf of the payee or holder-in-due-course - So long as power of attorney does not seek to conduct prosecution on behalf of payee or holder in due course, question of seeking permission in that behalf u/s 302 Cr.P.C. or the question as to who should seek such permission do not arise. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can file the complaint on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can give evidence in Court on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course, if facts necessary to secure conviction are within his personal knowledge. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Signature on cheque denied from the very beginning - Comparison of signatures - Comparison of signatures by Bank Manager - Bank Manager though by practice is experienced to compare the signatures but be cannot be said to be handwriting expert with necessary expertise - Cheque referred to document expert for comparison of disputed signatures at the cost of accused and in case it is found that signatures on cheque are not that of accused then charges of expert to be borne by complainant. (Saheb Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (BOMBAY) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced - During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's

responsibility - Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general in nature - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Every request to forward cheque to expert need not be blindly granted. (Baby Thomas Vs Paul), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 346 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 494 (KERALA) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director and Director - Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge, consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Repayment alleged Receipt produced in defence evidence - In rebuttal complainant filed an affidavit that he never issued such receipt and it does not bear his signature and it is forged - Complainant once again cross examined and he once again denied his signature on the receipt - After conviction accused filed an application for having such receipt examined by handwriting expert - In absence of taking steps despite having opportunity during trial and object being to fill up lacuna, rejection of application by Appellate Court, held, proper. (Mamatadevi Vs Vijay Kumar Mamraj Agrawal), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (BOMBAY) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction Cheque drawn in Philibhit - Drawer's bank in Bareilly - Cheque presented in Delhi and dishonoured - Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to try the complaint. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Cheque issued to pay time barred debt - Has the character of legally enforceable debt. (A.R.M.Nizmathullah Vs Vaduganathan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 490 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (MADRAS) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complainant can proceed against some of the Directors, 'Deemed liable'. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - An implied authority is given to the holder of cheque to fill up the columns therein when a blank cheque duly signed is given - If holder of cheque fills up date and amount by words and figures then it does not amount to any offence - It is not a case of forgery an fabrication. (Chinthala Cheruvu & Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.P.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 391 (A.P.) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping Director - Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - Sufficient money to honour the cheque was not in the account - Accused is liable under the Act. (Som Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through

registered post - Notice received back with postal endorsement 'Unclaimed' - Held, presumption is of due notice. (Som Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H) #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures on cheque disputed - Request to send cheque to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures - Request cannot be declined on ground of delay. (P.R.Ramakrishnan Vs P.Govindarajan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 430 (MADRAS) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque Account attached by Income Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not made out - Complaint quashed. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bankers cheque issued inspite of account attached by Income Tax Department - No offence is made out - Tort of negligence is not ingredient of an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence Complainant received the amount involved in the cheque - Complaint having no objection for quashing the proceedings - Proceedings quashed. (J.C.Khandelwal & Ors. Vs M/s. Mittal Cotton Ginning & Processing Factory), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (P&H) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Liability - An essential ingredient of an actionable complaint, where liability is fastened on the shoulders of a Director, would be to aver that the person concerned was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory `Drawn' - Has to be understood as execution - Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' - Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque amount 4 lakhs - Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs - Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) :

2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal appearance - Dismissal of application - Reasons not assigned - Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at - Impugned order set aside - Court to decide application afresh. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' - Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address - Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant - Held, there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. (Michel Anthony Vs P.S.Chandrasekara), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice - Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation, held, not proper. (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption - When execution itself is not proved, presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available - Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque - In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However, complaint not proving as to when cheque was given, who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written - Held, it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice - Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution - In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused, it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him - Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused, it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S.138 of the Act. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt, whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial - Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan - Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter - Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) :

2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- First Proviso (a) - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by a Govt. company - Examination of complainant on oath - Exemption - For applicability of S.200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of authorised signatory - Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Accused evaded service of notice - Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court - Such a plea is not available in revision - Proviso to S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers. (K.Chinnasamy Vs C.Duraisamy), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Misuser of blank cheque - Reply to statutory notice not given - `Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused - Failure of accused to rebut the presumption - Accused, held, guilty u/s 138 of the Act. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan of Rs.4 lacs - No document produced in support of loan amount - Held, this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to

adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory `Drawn' - Has to be understood as execution - Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' - Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque amount 4 lakhs - Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs - Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal appearance - Dismissal of application - Reasons not assigned - Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at - Impugned order set aside - Court to decide application afresh. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' - Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address - Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant - Held, there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. (Michel Anthony Vs P.S.Chandrasekara), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice - Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation, held, not proper. (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY)

#11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption - When execution itself is not proved, presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available - Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque - In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However, complaint not proving as to when cheque was given, who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written - Held, it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice - Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution - In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused, it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him - Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused, it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S.138 of the Act. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt, whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial - Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan - Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter - Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- First Proviso (a) - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by a Govt. company - Examination of complainant on oath - Exemption - For applicability of S.200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of authorised signatory - Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY)

#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Accused evaded service of notice - Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court - Such a plea is not available in revision - Proviso to S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers. (K.Chinnasamy Vs C.Duraisamy), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Misuser of blank cheque - Reply to statutory notice not given - `Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused - Failure of accused to rebut the presumption - Accused, held, guilty u/s 138 of the Act. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan of Rs.4 lacs - No document produced in support of loan amount - Held, this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory `Drawn' - Has to be understood as execution - Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' - Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque amount 4 lakhs - Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs - Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld.

(Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal appearance - Dismissal of application - Reasons not assigned - Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at - Impugned order set aside - Court to decide application afresh. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' - Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address - Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant - Held, there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. (Michel Anthony Vs P.S.Chandrasekara), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice - Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation, held, not proper. (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption - When execution itself is not proved, presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available - Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque - In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However, complaint not proving as to when cheque was given, who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written - Held, it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice - Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution - In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused, it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him - Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused, it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S.138 of the Act. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)

#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt, whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial - Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan - Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter - Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- First Proviso (a) - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by a Govt. company - Examination of complainant on oath - Exemption - For applicability of S.200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of authorised signatory - Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt; and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Accused evaded service of notice - Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court - Such a plea is not available in revision - Proviso to S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers. (K.Chinnasamy Vs C.Duraisamy), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Misuser of blank cheque - Reply to statutory notice not given - `Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused - Failure of accused to rebut the presumption - Accused, held, guilty u/s 138 of the Act. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove

that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan of Rs.4 lacs - No document produced in support of loan amount - Held, this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Change in date - It is for the complainant to prove that change in the date was made with the consent of accused. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Quashing of - Plea that goods were rejected and complainant was not entitled to get the cheque encashed - Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground - Plea is available at the time of defence. (M/s V.V.Enterprises & Anr. Vs M/s Bansal Industries), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 917 (P&H) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Summary trial - Provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. applies - Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Magistrate has no option but to acquit accused unless he chooses to adjourn the proceeding to some other date. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) - No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - In no way absolve statutory liability cast upon accused - Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Balasubbaraj Vs R.Narayanan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of loan amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on account of mental torture - Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of S.138 of the Act - Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable. (Kapil Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - During pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant, his general power of attorney holder, to continue the proceedings - No ground to quash the proceedings. (Bodapati Naga Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A.P.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Sentence of simple imprisonment and fine - Appeal against - Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non deposit of amount of fine. (Vijay D.Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (S.C.)

#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back unserved with endorsement 'addressee long absent and return to sender' - Order taking cognizance not liable to be quashed - However, the allegation that accused refused to receive notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. (Asif Akbani Vs P.K.Mani), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Issuance of process - Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Endorsement on cheque `sans recourse' - Contention that cheque itself speaks that payee will not have recourse to file the complaint, taking cognizance is barred - Held, when once cheque is dishonoured, the endorsement on the cheque made by accused without knowledge of the complainant and in absence of mentioning the said fact in reply notice given by accused, the prosecution cannot be quashed exonerating the accused from the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner Specific averments in complaint revealing role played by them and that they looked after day to day affairs of the firm - Plea that petitioner was not a partner in firm or that he was not involved in day to day affairs of firm - Such fact to be established at trial - No ground to quash complaint. (Chhedi Lal Gupta Vs Shri Suresh Damani & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (CALCUTTA) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (CALCUTTA) #14: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal by addressee - Refusal to accept notice is deemed a proper service - Counting of 15 days starts from date of notice or the date on which notice was refused. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.R.K.Jain & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.P.) #15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Proof of - Carbon copy of notice not filed - Photostat copy of notice not admissible in evidence - Accused admitted having received notice and that he replied notice - Complaint cannot be held to be defective on ground of lack of proof of notice. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - An employee filed complaint on behalf of company - Letter authorising employee to file complaint not filed Though this is a curable defect but same not removed even during trial - Held, complaint not maintainable for want of authority letter. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Change of date without authorisation - Material alteration - Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. merely stated that he gave the cheques but it no where speaks about the change in dates - Held, complainant cannot get any benefit of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 :

2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Application for condonation of delay not filed alongwith complaint - It is a curable defect Complainant directed to file affidavit setting out reasons for delay in filing complaint and trial Court directed to provide opportunity to accused to raise their defence - If Court is satisfied that there are adequate and cogent reasons to condone delay, then same to be decided on merits. (R.Kanthimathi & Ors. Vs Bank of India), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge promissory note - Material alterations in promissory note and request for sending pronote for expert examination - Plea taken for the first time at appellate stage - Not permissible. (S.P.Muthu Vs Kirupakaran), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (MADRAS) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by Director of Company on behalf of company - Documentary evidence not filed to show that he is Director of Company and has been authorised by the Company to file and depose on behalf of the company - Dismissal of complaint - Held, justified. (Director, Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited, Dharwad Vs Basanna Pattekar), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature on cheque denied - No steps taken to prove that the said signature is that of the accused - Complaint is liable to be dismissed. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.Sanjeevan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Closure of account Account was closed even on date of issue of cheque - Account was closed not by accused but by Bank in accordance with rules governing current account - Held, accused is not liable when he had no notice of closure of account. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.Sanjeevan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #24: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal to receive - Complaint when found to be well within time then non mentioning of date of service or refusal of notice in complaint is not harmful to the complainant. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.R.K.Jain & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.P.) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint However, cognizance taken after maturity of complaint - Mere presentation of pre mature complaint need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed - No ground to quash proceedings. (Prashant M.Aachawal Vs Gulab Singh Raghuvanshi), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 251 (M.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 201 (M.P.) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bank endorsement 'Account expires' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque - Provision of S.138 of the Act is attracted. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Particular person, whose statement was taken on oath, at the first instance is not required to represent the company till the end of the proceedings - There can be occasions when different person can represent the company - It is open to the company to seek

permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre mature complaint - Complaint not to be dismissed - Complaint can be kept pending for taking cognizance when cause of action arises to the complainant or it may be returned to complainant for filing it later. (L.K.Prabhavathi Vs K.V.Sree Rama Murthy & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (A.P.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation - Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque amount Rs.20, 000/- - Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court - Accused to pay Rs.27, 000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month - If realised the entire amount be released to the complainant. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque Initiation of proceedings u/s 138 of the Act - Initiation of separate proceedings u/s 420 IPC for the offence of cheating is maintainable as it does not amount to double jeopardy. (V.Kannan Vs State by District Crime Branch, Namakkal), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 549 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed Regarding same very cheques FIR lodged u/ss 420, 406 IPC - FIR quashed. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 406). (Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Even if initially there was no authority, still the Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect - At a subsequent stage, the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct address - Notice if received back with postal endorsement that premises is found locked or the addressee is not available then notice is deemed to be served on the addressee unless addressee proves that he had no knowledge that notice was brought to his address.

(C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of the amount as well as a complaint for bouncing of the cheques. (Smt.Mymoona Vs H.M.Trading Company, Mangalore & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KARNATAKA) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - No instrument executed though a huge loan was advanced - Even no interest thereon charged - Earlier accused did not pay instalments in respect of the prized amount of chitties - Loan advanced inspite of the fact that three civil suits for recovery of money against accused were pending Complainant not approaching Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man - Held, accused has discharged his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act - Order of acquittal, upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed in default for single instance of non appearance of complainant - Complaint ordered to be restored to be decided on merits. (Print Links (India) & Anr. Vs M/s.Kiran Paper Convertors & Merchants & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (P&H) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advancing loan of a huge amount of Rs.3.16 lakhs - Complainant himself used to borrow money from his brothers, father and others - Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a huge amount - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S.C.) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving notice' is not the same as `receipt of notice' - Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment - It is for the payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address - Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Claim as to non receipt of - Drawer can still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act - If drawer does not make payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not available to him. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad - Held, provision of S.138 is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of pleading that notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due - However, returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint - Returned enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' - Held, requirement of S.138 of the Act is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Extension of date of cheque - When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time, which is permissible, then on each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S.25 of Contract Act as well as an acknowledgment within the meaning of S.18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within the period of limitation - Held, liability is legally enforceable liability. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - There was no debt or liability at the time when cheque was given - Complaint not maintainable - Summoning order quashed. (Exports India & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 : 2007(137) DLT 193 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent Petitioner neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Tendered his resignation prior to issuance of cheque - Not liable for the offence committed by company - Order of issuance of process against Director quashed and set aside. (Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma Vs M/s.Mamta Agency & Ors.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 805 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 089 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and compensation Distinction between sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate cannot award compensation in addition to fine - Compensation cannot be recovered forthwith unless period of appeal expires - There is no reason as to why the amount of compensation should be held to be automatically payable, although the same is only to be recovered as if a fine has been imposed. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Conviction of company and A2 - Company sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25, 000/- - A2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month - A2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15 lacs to the complainant - Appeal against - Appellate Court while admitting appeal directed them to deposit

a sum of Rs.5 lacs each - Held, impugned order is not sustainable - Amount of compensation must be a reasonable amount - A2 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac - Since fine alone has been imposed on company which can be suspended during appeal. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - If transactions are witnessed by power of attorney or he has full knowledge of the transactions, his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not issued for a debt or liability - Burden of proof is on the accused. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Accused cannot be convicted u/s 138 of the Act. (Zaheeda Kazi Vs Mrs.Sharina Ashraff Khan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (BOMBAY) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Detailed reasons need not to be given. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal appearance - Cheque amount Rs.2 lakhs - Exemption granted from personal appearance on deposit of an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Has to be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence - Defence set up in reply to notice not to be looked into at that stage. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for

the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee - Bank account closed after issuance of cheque - Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured - No criminal liability for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank; (ii) Cheque when presented for payment, was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date on which it was issued in blank; (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or liability - Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya Mahantesh), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.) : 2007(2) AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 213 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Despatch of notice within 30 days is the requirement of law - Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant. (Ravi Vs Kuttappan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through registered post at correct address - Notice received back `unclaimed' - Held, notice is presumed to have been served. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Forms part of the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the veracity of the allegations is not to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of the evidence which is yet to come on record. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay

amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer - Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)

#10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - - Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability - Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lacs - Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court - Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.I. - Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques - Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards - Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option - Held, as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65

#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint Condonation of delay - First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint - Application be decided after hearing the parties. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 - Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 - Petitioner was not Director at the material time - Proceedings against petitioner, quashed . (Dr.(Mrs.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and/or compensation - Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid, consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks - In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer - Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - - Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability - Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lacs - Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court - Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.I. - Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques - Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards - Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option - Held, as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint Condonation of delay - First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint - Application be decided after hearing the parties. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 - Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 - Petitioner was not Director at the material time - Proceedings against petitioner, quashed . (Dr.(Mrs.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES

065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and/or compensation - Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid, consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks - In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per registered post and also as per UPC - Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by endorsing false report - Notice sent under UPC received by addressee - Service of notice denied by filing affidavit - Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit - It is liable to be deemed that there was no sufficient service of notice - Proceedings quashed. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) but, it was dishonoured; (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable; and (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Company - Director resigned prior to issuance of cheque - No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (Lachhman P.Udhani & Ors. Vs M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Not received by accused - Cheque presented again - Bank not accepting the cheque - Bank had no occasion either to honour or dishonour the cheque - No cause of action - Complaint dismissed. (Manibhadra Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 47 - Dishonour of cheque - Expert opinion - Signature on cheque disputed - Court undertook exercise of naked comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused - Court should be assisted by experts opinion - Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of accused or not with reference to specimen signatures - Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant - Acquittal not valid. (Rajendra Prasad Vs M.Shivaraj), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee - Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act. (Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Provision of Section 446 of Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act - Order staying proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act, quashed. (Gyan Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to give sworn statement on behalf of his principal - Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of power of attorney justified. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Description should be clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque -

Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter - Husband neither a general nor special power of attorney holder - In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the cheque - Held, complainant not competent to institute the complaint - Complaint quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - `Within a period of six months' Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months. (Nanu Vs Vijayan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption - Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount - No legally enforceable debt - Acquittal, held, proper. (V.Rama Shetty Vs N.Sasidaran Nayar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant - Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default - Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an order on merits. (V.R.Jayasankar Vs K.G.Dharman & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Winding up orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed - Complaint against Directors of Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed is not maintainable. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures denied Handwriting expert - When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque - In case of denial of signature of drawer of a cheque, the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and not a handwriting expert - Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law. (H.M.Satish Vs B.N.Ashok), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in default - Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was essential on the crucial date - Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was dismissed without considering the said question. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction - Complaint ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 143-- (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.143 of the Act. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Process issued - Quashing of proceedings - Cheque not presented within its validity period i.e. six months - Liability u/s 138 of Act not incurred - Proceedings quashed. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K)

#3: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - For invoking criminal liability under S.138 of the Act, cheque is required to be presented to the drawee bank or the payee bank within the period of six months from the date of its issue. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Default sentence - Accused to undergo two months SI on failure to pay compensation amount within two months - Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running. (K.G.Girish Kumar Vs M/s Muthoot Capital Service Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 704 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 143 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 86 : 2007(1) KERLJ 161 : 2007(1) KERLT 16 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 103 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Accused appeared through counsel and moved an application for exemption from his personal appearance - Application dismissed and non bailable warrants issued and also issued process u/ss 82/83 Cr.P.C. - Order set aside - Issue of non bailable warrants and issue of process u/ss 82/83 Cr.P.C. is not required when accused is represented through his counsel and it is not a case where he is absconding and evading the court process. (Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs State), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (DELHI) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against - Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused transacting business on behalf of company on commission basis - Accused purchasing potatoes from complainant on behalf of company - Accused issued cheque in discharge of debt of company Held, accused is validly prosecution - Conviction upheld. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through private courier service - Presumption of service of notice is not available - Presumption of service of notice is available only when notice is sent by post, properly addressed, prepaying and sent by registered post - Held, in absence of date of service of notice of demand, summoning order quashed. (Deepak Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 631 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liabilities - Dishonour of such cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. Vs Umesh Sharma), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance

of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Misutilisation of blank signed cheque - Sending cheque to handwriting expert - Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution - Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints filed - Trial for each offence held separately and accused convicted - Held, it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence - Refusal of Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints are maintainable - However, in case single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a single transaction, permitting a single trial. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant - Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.P.C. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint through power of attorney holder - Power of attorney - If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or the validity of the same. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of Magistrate in the same district - CJM erroneously took cognizance - Complaint returned to be presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction - Complaint beyond limitation when filed in

Court of Magistrate - Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the district, but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and, therefore, it may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked - Held, once the Court of CJM had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the period provided for limitation would stop running from the day it was presented in the said Court - Complaint, held within limitation. (V.K.Soman Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 : 2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 : 2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Manager filed complaint - Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction - Court at place where cheque was presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs State of Maharashtra), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (BOMBAY) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued - Not a ground to quash complaint - It is a matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law. (M/s.Shirdi Overseas Imports & Exports & Anr. Vs M/s.Serve Overseas & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice - Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank

witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed. (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount - Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)

#14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Revision - Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers - Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit - Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account, as true and correct - Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held, not proper - Accused liable to conviction. (Ganesh Enterprises, Bangalore Vs D.R.Sarala), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of books of account maintained by complainant - Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.P.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.P.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment - Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant - At the fag end of trial, reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.Gunmala & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M.P.) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Cheque issued in name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued in itself defective - Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed through power of attorney holder - Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed - Complaint, held, rightly dismissed. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 3 days in filing complaint- Condonation - Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT.) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners - Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs

Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transitory bail - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque - Accused living at Chandigarh - Case pending before Court at Jaipur - Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days - Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U.T. Chandigarh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice - Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed. (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982

(ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount - Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Revision - Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers - Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit - Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account, as true and correct - Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held, not proper - Accused liable to conviction. (Ganesh Enterprises, Bangalore Vs D.R.Sarala), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of books of account maintained by complainant - Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.P.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.P.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment - Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant - At the fag end of trial, reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.Gunmala & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M.P.) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Cheque issued in

name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued in itself defective - Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed through power of attorney holder - Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed - Complaint, held, rightly dismissed. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 3 days in filing complaint- Condonation - Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT.) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners - Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transitory bail - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque - Accused living at Chandigarh - Case pending before Court at Jaipur - Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days - Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U.T. Chandigarh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138(a)-- - `Drawn' - Cheque or instrument must be said to have been drawn on the date it bears for purposes of computation of period of its validity even though it was drawn or prepared on a different date. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138(a)-- - Post dated cheque - Post dated cheque becomes a cheque under the Act on the date which is written on the said cheque and the six months period is to be reckoned from the said date. (Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs Gulshan Rai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (S.C.) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0038 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0150 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0001 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0446 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0699 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0150 : 1993 (3) CRIMES 1064 : 1994 (1) KLT 0111 : 1993 (6) JT 0280 : 1994 (1) SLJ

(1) : 1993 LW (CRL.) 0641 : 1993 (6) JT 0280 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note or bond - Instrument in question attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer - Signed by maker promising to repay the amount borrowed to lender without interest immediately after Deepavali or Ugadi Held, document in question is a bond and not promissory note - Admissible in evidence on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. (Allani Lingaiah Vs Paidimarri Sathya Babu, Sarpanch and Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (A.P.) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Bond/promissory note - Stamp duty Document in question could be construed as a bond and also as a promissory note - When a document falls within definition of two deeds then duty payable higher is chargeable - Stamp duty chargeable is duty payable on Bond being highest of the duty. (Permualla Mallesham Vs Chennamaneni Sumanya & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (A.P.) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 5-- - Promissory notes - Six months period specified for repayment - It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand - Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. (R.Ravindran Vs M.Rajamanickam), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Partnership firm Liability of retired partner - Promissory note executed by partners of firm - One of partner denying his liability thereunder on ground that he had since retired from firm and liability has to be met by reconstituted firm - Held, person who had executed promissory note is jointly and severally liable to discharge debt thereunder irrespective of whether he continues to be partner of firm or ceased to be partner or that firm has ceased to exist. (M.A.Parthasarathy Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 692 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 311 (KAR.) : 2007 AIHC 1302 : 2007(1) AIRKAR R 340 : 2007(1) KANTLJ 200 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 118-- - Promissory note - Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned - Said witness not examined - Execution not proved - Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and acknowledgement of debt. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 20-- - Pronote - Payee's name - Space left blank - Payee can enter his name later on - Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Execution - Proof Burden rests upon plaintiff to prove promissory note in all respects - Evaluation of possibilities for the defendant to borrow the amount, or his necessities do not have any role to play in this regard. (P.Venkatamma & Anr. Vs Dontham Sulochana), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (A.P.) : AIR 2006 A.P. 92 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 508 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 11 SOC : 2006(37) ALLINDCAS 334 : 2005(6) ANDHLD 211 : 2005(6) ANDHLT 789 : 2006 BANKJ 205 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Need not be in a particular form. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Pronote - Suit against legal heirs of borrower - Nothing to show that said heirs though related to maker have inherited his estate so as to become liable to repay his debts - Suit not maintainable. (Govindammal & Anr. Vs Bhuvaneswari Financing Corporation), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (MADRAS) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 87-- - Pronote - Material alterations-(1)

Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.K.Ramdas & Ors.), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Document which is not a bill of exchange or promissory note, even if insufficiently stamped can be admitted in evidence on payment of penal stamp duty. (Kundan Mal Vs Nand Kishore), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (RAJASTHAN) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Loan advanced on execution of promissory note and mortgage deed - Trial Court disallowing part of the claim on the ground that the said amount was not shown in the statement of account - Held, clerical lapse cannot wipe out contractual liability flowing from promissory note and mortgage deed. (Bank of Baroda Vs Pandurang Bala Saheb Nalavade & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Presence of default clause by itself will not make a document not a promissory note, if it otherwise satisfies the mandatory requirement of a promise to pay to the order or bearer. (Stamp Act, 1899, S.2(22), 2(5)(b). (Alikunju Hamsa Vs Varghese George), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note is not re-quired to be attested - If it is attested by witnesses it will not make the same any less a promissory note if the instrument is made payable to order or bearer. (Stamp Act, 1899, S.2(22), 2(5)(b). (Alikunju Hamsa Vs Varghese George), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 19-- - Promissory note - endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month - Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand - Held, no. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Essential requisites `Promise', absence of word, not sufficient to declare that document is not a promissory note. (Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - `Promissory note' - Tests to determine (i) Is the sum to be paid a sum of money and is that sum certain? (ii) Is the payment to be made to or to order of a person who is certain or to the bearer of the instrument? (iii) Has the maker signed the document? (iv) Is the promise to pay made in the instrument the substance of the instrument? and (v) Did the parties intend that the document should be a promissory note? (Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Pronote - Age of ink in signature and body of pronote - Plea of signatures obtained on blank paper - Held, it would be just and proper exercise of discretion to send the document to Handwriting Expert for his opinion as regards the age of inks in signature and body of pronote. (Penumastha Ramachandra Raju Vs Gaddam Raja Sekhar Reddy), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 169 (A.P.) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 118-- - Promissory note - Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned - Said witness not examined - Execution not proved - Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and

acknowledgement of debt. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB)

#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 19-- - Promissory note - endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month - Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand - Held, no. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)

#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 20-- - Pronote - Payee's name - Space left blank - Payee can enter his name later on - Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 5-- - Promissory notes - Six months period specified for repayment - It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand - Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. (R.Ravindran Vs M.Rajamanickam), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 87-- - Pronote - Material alterations-(1) Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.K.Ramdas & Ors.), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 5-- - Promissory notes - Six months period specified for repayment - It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand - Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. (R.Ravindran Vs M.Rajamanickam), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 5-- - Bill of exchange - Types of 'Hundis' Essentials - Instrument must be in writing and the instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded and it should be signed by the maker and there must be an order to pay. (Krishna Devi Vs Firm Tikayaram Lekhraj Batra), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (M.P.) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 124, 5, 6, 7-- - Pay order - Is not a cheque - Dishonour of pay order - Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6, 13-- - Explanation (1) - Cheque - Scoring of the word `bearer' - Does not make it non transferable - Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. (M.George & Bros. Vs Cherian), 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6-- - Suit on basis of dishonoured cheque - Suit is maintainable as a summary suit. (Iram Feroz Vs Ayaz Gadhiya), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 124, 5, 6, 7-- - Pay order - Is not a

cheque - Dishonour of pay order - Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6, 13-- - Explanation (1) - Cheque - Scoring of the word `bearer' - Does not make it non transferable - Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. (M.George & Bros. Vs Cherian), 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6, 13-- - Explanation (1) - Cheque - Scoring of the word `bearer' - Does not make it non transferable - Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. (M.George & Bros. Vs Cherian), 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 13-- - Negotiable instrument - An endorsement of repayment on the promissory note cannot be said to be a negotiable instrument. (Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs T.P.Srinivasa Naicker), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (MADRAS) #1: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 15-- - Endorsement - There must be a clear indication to make the payment by endorser to endorsee. (State Bank of India Vs Smt.Sainam Ningol Thambal Devi), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (GAUHATI) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 50, 15-- - Pronote - Endorsement and consequential Passing of the property in the pronote made subject to certain conditions Indorsee not fulfilling those conditions - There is no valid transfer. (Santhamma Vs Devaki Amma), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (KERALA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 16-- - Word `Assigned' used in endorsement made on the back of pronote be understood as a direction to pay the amounts mentioned therein to or to the order of a specified person - It is an endorsement in full falling under Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not a transfer of any actionable claim falling under S.130 of Transfer of Property Act - Held, there can be assignment only of a debt and not assignment of any promissory note - Intention be gathered from words actually used in endorsement - Real intention is only endorsement of pronotes in favour of plaintiff though the word `assigned' is used. (M/s Mulji Mehta and Sons and others Vs C.Mohan Krishna), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (A.P.) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 18-- - Amount in figures and words different Amount sta #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 19-- - Promissory note - endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month - Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand - Held, no. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19-- - Pronote in which no time for payment is specified is one payable on demand. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 20-- - Pronote - Payee's name - Space left blank - Payee can enter his name later on - Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20-- - Cheque - Estoppel from denying the liability under the cheque issued - S.20 of the Act does not apply because S.20 applies only with regard to incohate negotiable instruments - So far as the cheques are concerned, they don't require any stamp under the Stamp Act in force. (C.T.Joseph Vs I.V.Philip), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 224 (KERALA) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20-- - Promissory note - Blank - Holder in due course can fill up the blanks and negotiate the instrument. (K.Mani Vs Elumalai), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (MADRAS) #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated cheque - When a drawer deliver a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right, that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument - Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right - Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 27-- - Provision is applicable to civil as well as criminal liabilities under the Act. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059

#3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file a complaint. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 31-- - Wrongful dishonour of cheque by Bank Damages - Plaintiff issued three cheques amounting to about Rs.2 lacs - Plaintiff's cash credit account showed debit balance of about Rs.12 lacs as against sanctioned limit of 15 lakhs - Grant of damages of Rs.1 lakh for loss of reputation is not excessive in view of the fact that plaintiff has been carrying on business in large scale affecting its reputation. (Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/s Bismilla Trading Co.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (MADRAS) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 31-- - Bank wrongfully dishonoured cheque and illegally debited Rs.610/- from account of account holder - Held, account holder is entitled to damages without proof of special loss or damages - Award of Rs.2500/- as general damages is proper. (Pandurang Vs Akola District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 601 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2005 BOM 236 : 2005(2) BANKCLR 405 : 2005(4) BANKCAS 218 : 2005(2) BOMCR 599 : 2005(4) CIVLJ 619 : 2005(2) MAHLJ 521 : 2005(2) RECCIVR 288 1: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 43-- - Plea regarding absence of consideration It is very relevant in suits based on negotiable instruments because absence of consideration makes the instrument unenforceable. (State Bank of India Vs Smt.Sainam Ningol Thambal Devi), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (GAUHATI) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money - Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 46-- - Pronote - One of the executant admitted his signature and signature of other defendant a forgery - No decree can be passed against the defendant who admitted his signature as the promissory note itself is vitiated by forgery - Rights and liabilities arise only under completed instrument. (Krishnankutty Vs Velayudhan), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 610 (KERALA) : AIR 2005 KERALA 124 : 2006(1) AKAR(NOC) 50 (KER) : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 343 : 2005(32) ALLINDCAS 410 : 2005(3) BANKCAS 430 : 2006 BANKJ 603 : 2005(4) CIVLJ 708 : ILR (KER) 2005(1) KER 291 KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 50, 15-- - Pronote - Endorsement and consequential Passing of the property in the pronote made subject to certain conditions Indorsee not fulfilling those conditions - There is no valid transfer. (Santhamma Vs Devaki Amma), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (KERALA)

#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 68, 70-- - Pronote - Indorsement - Jurisdiction Territorial jurisdiction is governed by provisions of Act for presentation of negotiable instruments - Indorsement of promissory note cannot be treated as part of cause of action u/s 20(c) of CPC Holder in due course cannot entertain suit in Court at a place where indorsement on instrument

takes place. (S.S.V.Prasad Vs Y.Suresh Kumar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (A.P.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (A.P.) : AIR 2005 A.P. 37 : 2004(22) ALLINDCAS 697 : 2004(5) ANDHLD 57 : 2004(5) ANDHLT 814 : 2005(1)BANKCLR 557 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 330 : 2005(1) CIVLJ 145 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 79-- - Interest pendente lite - It is discretion of court to award contractual rate of interest or award a lesser rate of interest - Future interest Court is required to grant future interest also i.e. interest till realization of the decretal amount. (Rajendra Kumar Vs Keshari Chand), 1989 CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (RAJASTHAN) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Plaintiff is entitled to interest at rate of 18% per annum on outstanding amount of cheque from date of dishonour till realisation of amount. (Chanana Steel Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/s Jaitu Steel Tubes Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (H.P.) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Interest - Agreement between parties not to charge interest - Cheque given towards repayment of loan - Cheque dishonoured - Suit instituted on dishonour of cheque - Held, agreement cases to bind parties - Debtor is liable to pay interest as envisaged u/s 80 of the Act. (P.Mohan Vs Basavaraju), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 406 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT. 213 : 2003 AIR KANT. HCR 990 : 2003(1) ALL IND CAS 321 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 237 : 2003(2) ICC 930 : ILR (KANT.) 2003(1) KAR 931 : 2003(3) KANT LJ 138 : 2003(4) REC CIV R 13 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Interest - When suit is filed interest payable at 18% per annum is only upto date of institution of suit - Interest from date of filing of suit is not covered by S.80 NI Act but is governed by S.34 CPC. (Thankachan Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 DOC 6 (KER.) : 2006(5) ALJ (EE) 673 : 2006(44) ALLINDCAS 737 : 2006(2) KERLJ 679 : 2006(3) KLT 53 : 2006(4) RECCIVR 392 1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 82-- - Requirement u/s 82 of the Act - The maker, acceptor or endorser 'makes payment' - The emphasis must be placed on the words 'makes payment'. (Rajesh Varma Vs Aminex Holdings & Investments & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 160 (BOMBAY) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 85-- - Forged bearer cheque Liability of Bank Unless Bank proves that customer had knowledge of such forgery it cannot escape its liability and is bound to make good the loss - In the instant case as the customer had a current account as such Bank is not liable to pay any interest on the amount which is liable to pay to customer. (Babulal Agarwal Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 125 (CALCUTTA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 87-- - Pronote - Material alterations-(1) Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.K.Ramdas & Ors.), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 87-- - Cheque - Material alteration - Holder of the undated cheque has got the implied authority to put the date on the cheque - Once the date is shown on the cheque, the burden is on the drawer of the cheque that the payee has no authority to do so. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 87-- - Cheque - Material alteration - Putting a date on the cheque by the payee will not amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However, subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 92, 138-- - A firm having current account with a Bank - Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm - Cheques subsequently dishonoured/lost - Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm - Firm lost its remedy to recover the amount from owner - Action of bank not lawful. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 118-- - Promissory note - Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned - Said witness not examined - Execution not proved - Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and acknowledgement of debt. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Promissory note - Signatures admitted Statutory presumption u/s 118 of the Act operates. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Execution of pronote and receipt if proved then there is presumption of passing of consideration - Plaintiff is not further required to prove his capacity to make the payment at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. (Jit Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 044 (P&H) #5: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Promissory note - Signatures admitted Circumstances explained under which promissory note was signed - Execution denied - Does not tantamount to proof of execution of promissory note - Statutory presumption of passing consideration as provided u/s 118 of the Act cannot be drawn. (Shyamrao Vs Champalal s/o Suklal Kunabi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (M.P.) #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Consideration - Presumption Promissory note alleged to be executed under coercion and not voluntary - When execution is admitted there is presumption of consideration - To disprove the presumption defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. (Manapragada Krishna Murthy Vs M/s Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 990 (A.P.) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Consideration - If execution is proved there is presumption of consideration - Scribe of pronote in his evidence stated that defendant was not present when he filled up the blank pronote and no consideration was paid in his presence - Attesting witnesses not examined - Held, plaintiff has failed to prove the case of execution of pronote and payment of consideration. (C.Sesha Reddy Vs T.Basavana Goud), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA) #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Execution - Contention of defendant that he had only signed on the stamp and rest of the document was blank - Such an admission cannot be construed as an admission of execution of the pronote. (C.Sesha Reddy Vs T.Basavana Goud), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA) #9: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote and receipt - Execution duly

proved - There is presumption of consideration passed on to defendant at the time of execution of pronote and receipt. (Harnek Singh Vs Surjit Singh), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (P&H) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Cheque - Payment by cheque is indicative that it is issued to extinguish an existing debt and not to create a new one - It is open to the plaintiff to establish that the payment of the amount by cheque was in fact a loan. (Muhammedkutty Vs Abdulla), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 116 (KERALA) : AIR 2002 KER. 227 : 2002(3) BANK CAS 9 : 2002(2) CUR CC 194 : 2002(1) KER LJ 435 : 2002(1) KER LT 669 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Promissory note - Presumption - If execution is proved there is presumption of consideration - It is for the defendant to rebut that presumption if he pleads forgery. (Duggineni Seshagiri Rao Vs Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A.P.) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Presumption - Arises only if execution of document is proved - Signature on cheque admitted - Mere admission of signature on document do not prove execution. (C.T.Joseph Vs I.V.Philip), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 224 (KERALA) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Endorsement on pronote - Alleged to have been made by wife of defendant - No presumption can be drawn u/s 118 Negotiable Instruments Act as to valid payment - Burden lies on plaintiff to prove that it is an authorised payment on behalf of defendant to save limitation - Plaintiff failed to prove that wife of defendant had authority to make the payment - No evidence to show cordial relations between husband and wife - No pleading by plaintiff that amount was paid by wife as authorised agent Evidence without pleading in that respect is inadmissible - Endorsement on pronote fabricated document created only to save limitation - Endorsement does not save limitation - Suit having been filed beyond three years from date of pronote is barred by time. (Reddi Varamaiah Vs Pereddi Nagi Reddy), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (A.P.) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Rebuttal of presumption - Promissory note - Defence plea that promissory note was executed as security for payment of Rs.15, 000/out of which Rs.10, 000/- was already paid and Rs.5, 000/- is yet to be paid - This plea was established by production of account books and proof of its entries - Court below rightly accepted defence plea as presumption is rebutted. (S.K.Songappa Gounder Vs K.P.Muthusamy & Anr.), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 675 (MADRAS) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Defendants must prove the non-existence of consideration so probable that a reasonable man would subscribe to that view - Proof need not be restricted to evidence adduced by defendant Information elicited from the cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses can also be taken into consideration. (P.Venkatamma & Anr. Vs Dontham Sulochana), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (A.P.) : AIR 2006 A.P. 92 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 508 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 11 SOC : 2006(37) ALLINDCAS 334 : 2005(6) ANDHLD 211 : 2005(6) ANDHLT 789 : 2006 BANKJ 205 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course - Under Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 118-- - Cheque - Execution denied - Presumption under S.118 - Only when due execution is established. (Gangadhara Panicker Vs Haridasan), 1990

CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 118-- - Pronote - Execution when proved/admitted consideration is to be presumed - Burden of proving want of consideration or part consideration lies on executant. (Bollini Bhogeswara Rao & Ors. Vs Palakurthi Ramakrishna Rao), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (A.P.) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 118-- - Cheque - Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, presumption under S.118 arises that it is supported by consideration until the contrary is proved. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 118(1)-- - Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument - Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118(a)-- - Pronote - Consideration -Presumption - Initially plaintiff asserting cash consideration - Subsequently asserting past consideration Both pleas denied - Burden to prove consideration is on the plaintiff due to change of stands No proof of existence of past consideration - Consideration for suit pronote not supported on facts or law -First Appellate Court committed serious error of law by not appreciating evidence properly and by drawing inferences in regard to existence of past consideration which requires interference in second appeal - Appellate judgment set aside and ` suit dismissed. (Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Putta Mysura Reddy), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (A.P.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118(a)-- - Promissory note - Once execution is proved there is presumption of consideration - The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence - Once the defendant proves the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument - The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. (Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 593 (S.C.) : 1999(2) REC CIV R 615 : 1999(2) SUPREME 187 : 1999(3) SCC 35 : AIR 1999 SC 1008 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118(a)-- - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - Mere denial that no consideration had passed is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and something probable had to be bought on record to prove the non-existence of consideration. (Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 637 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (S.C.): 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2898 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118(a)-- - Consideration - Presumption Pronote - Execution if proved it is to be presumed that it is supported by a consideration - Such presumption is rebuttable by a probable defence - Onus shifts on plaintiff when defendant discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal - Burden upon defendant of proving the non-existence of consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities - If the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing he non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising u/s 118 of the Act. (Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 637 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (S.C.): 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2898 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing

evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118(g)-- - Pronote - Burden of proof - Initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution - Once execution is proved, burden shifts to defendant to disprove it - Plaintiff proved execution of pronote by examining himself and a witness - Plaintiff having discharged his initial burden the same shifted to defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged - Defendant having failed to discharge his burden, decree passed by lower Court is sustainable. (Ponuganti Subba Rao Vs Sikhakollu Pulla Rao), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (A.P.) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course - Under Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 131-- - Protection under section 131 Negligence in permitting to open account, presentation of cheque, collection of the amount and allowing encashment the next day without verification - Not entitled to the protection. (Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (KERALA) #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 137-- - Quashing of complaint - Matters which are to be agitated during trial cannot be gone into for the purpose of quashment of a proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. Vs Pukharaj Jain), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Change in date - It is for the complainant to prove that change in the date was made with the consent of accused. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Quashing of - Plea that goods were rejected and complainant was not entitled to get the cheque encashed - Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground - Plea is available at the time of defence. (M/s V.V.Enterprises & Anr. Vs M/s Bansal Industries), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 917 (P&H) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Summary trial - Provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. applies - Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Magistrate has no option but to acquit accused unless he chooses to adjourn the proceeding to some other date. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Non

appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) - No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - In no way absolve statutory liability cast upon accused - Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Balasubbaraj Vs R.Narayanan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of loan amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on account of mental torture - Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of S.138 of the Act - Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable. (Kapil Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - During pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant, his general power of attorney holder, to continue the proceedings - No ground to quash the proceedings. (Bodapati Naga Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A.P.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Sentence of simple imprisonment and fine - Appeal against - Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non deposit of amount of fine. (Vijay D.Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (S.C.) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back unserved with endorsement 'addressee long absent and return to sender' - Order taking cognizance not liable to be quashed - However, the allegation that accused refused to receive notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. (Asif Akbani Vs P.K.Mani), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Issuance of process - Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Endorsement on cheque `sans recourse' - Contention that cheque itself speaks that payee will not have recourse to file the complaint, taking cognizance is barred - Held, when once cheque is dishonoured, the endorsement on the cheque made by accused without knowledge of the complainant and in absence of mentioning the said fact in reply notice given by accused, the prosecution cannot be quashed exonerating the accused from the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner Specific averments in complaint revealing role played by them and that they looked after day to day affairs of the firm - Plea that petitioner was not a partner in firm or that he was not involved in day to day affairs of firm - Such fact to be established at trial - No ground to quash complaint. (Chhedi Lal Gupta Vs Shri Suresh Damani & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (CALCUTTA) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (CALCUTTA)

#14: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal by addressee - Refusal to accept notice is deemed a proper service - Counting of 15 days starts from date of notice or the date on which notice was refused. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.R.K.Jain & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.P.) #15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Proof of - Carbon copy of notice not filed - Photostat copy of notice not admissible in evidence - Accused admitted having received notice and that he replied notice - Complaint cannot be held to be defective on ground of lack of proof of notice. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - An employee filed complaint on behalf of company - Letter authorising employee to file complaint not filed Though this is a curable defect but same not removed even during trial - Held, complaint not maintainable for want of authority letter. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Change of date without authorisation - Material alteration - Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. merely stated that he gave the cheques but it no where speaks about the change in dates - Held, complainant cannot get any benefit of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Application for condonation of delay not filed alongwith complaint - It is a curable defect Complainant directed to file affidavit setting out reasons for delay in filing complaint and trial Court directed to provide opportunity to accused to raise their defence - If Court is satisfied that there are adequate and cogent reasons to condone delay, then same to be decided on merits. (R.Kanthimathi & Ors. Vs Bank of India), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge promissory note - Material alterations in promissory note and request for sending pronote for expert examination - Plea taken for the first time at appellate stage - Not permissible. (S.P.Muthu Vs Kirupakaran), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (MADRAS) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by Director of Company on behalf of company - Documentary evidence not filed to show that he is Director of Company and has been authorised by the Company to file and depose on behalf of the company - Dismissal of complaint - Held, justified. (Director, Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited, Dharwad Vs Basanna Pattekar), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature on cheque denied - No steps taken to prove that the said signature is that of the accused - Complaint is liable to be dismissed. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.Sanjeevan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Closure of account Account was closed even on date of issue of cheque - Account was closed not by accused but by Bank in accordance with rules governing current account - Held, accused is not liable when he had no notice of closure of account. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.Sanjeevan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT

CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #24: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal to receive - Complaint when found to be well within time then non mentioning of date of service or refusal of notice in complaint is not harmful to the complainant. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.R.K.Jain & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.P.) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint However, cognizance taken after maturity of complaint - Mere presentation of pre mature complaint need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed - No ground to quash proceedings. (Prashant M.Aachawal Vs Gulab Singh Raghuvanshi), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 251 (M.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 201 (M.P.) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bank endorsement 'Account expires' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque - Provision of S.138 of the Act is attracted. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Particular person, whose statement was taken on oath, at the first instance is not required to represent the company till the end of the proceedings - There can be occasions when different person can represent the company - It is open to the company to seek permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre mature complaint - Complaint not to be dismissed - Complaint can be kept pending for taking cognizance when cause of action arises to the complainant or it may be returned to complainant for filing it later. (L.K.Prabhavathi Vs K.V.Sree Rama Murthy & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (A.P.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation - Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque amount Rs.20, 000/- - Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court - Accused to pay Rs.27, 000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month - If

realised the entire amount be released to the complainant. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque Initiation of proceedings u/s 138 of the Act - Initiation of separate proceedings u/s 420 IPC for the offence of cheating is maintainable as it does not amount to double jeopardy. (V.Kannan Vs State by District Crime Branch, Namakkal), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 549 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed Regarding same very cheques FIR lodged u/ss 420, 406 IPC - FIR quashed. (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 406). (Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Even if initially there was no authority, still the Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect - At a subsequent stage, the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct address - Notice if received back with postal endorsement that premises is found locked or the addressee is not available then notice is deemed to be served on the addressee unless addressee proves that he had no knowledge that notice was brought to his address. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of the amount as well as a complaint for bouncing of the cheques. (Smt.Mymoona Vs H.M.Trading Company, Mangalore & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KARNATAKA) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - No instrument executed though a huge loan was advanced - Even no interest thereon charged - Earlier accused did not pay instalments in respect of the prized amount of chitties - Loan advanced inspite of the fact that three civil suits for recovery of money against accused were pending Complainant not approaching Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man - Held, accused has discharged his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act - Order of acquittal, upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed in default for single instance of non appearance of complainant - Complaint ordered to be restored to be decided on merits. (Print Links (India) & Anr. Vs M/s.Kiran Paper Convertors & Merchants & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (P&H) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advancing loan of a huge amount of Rs.3.16 lakhs - Complainant himself used to borrow money from his brothers, father

and others - Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a huge amount - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S.C.) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving notice' is not the same as `receipt of notice' - Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment - It is for the payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address - Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Claim as to non receipt of - Drawer can still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act - If drawer does not make payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not available to him. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad - Held, provision of S.138 is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of pleading that notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due - However, returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint - Returned enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' - Held, requirement of S.138 of the Act is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Extension of date of cheque - When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time, which is permissible, then on each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S.25 of Contract Act as well as an acknowledgment within the meaning of S.18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within the period of limitation - Held, liability is legally enforceable liability. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - There was no debt or liability at the time when cheque was given - Complaint not maintainable - Summoning order quashed. (Exports India & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 : 2007(137) DLT 193 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3)

CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent Petitioner neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Tendered his resignation prior to issuance of cheque - Not liable for the offence committed by company - Order of issuance of process against Director quashed and set aside. (Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma Vs M/s.Mamta Agency & Ors.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 805 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 089 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and compensation Distinction between sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate cannot award compensation in addition to fine - Compensation cannot be recovered forthwith unless period of appeal expires - There is no reason as to why the amount of compensation should be held to be automatically payable, although the same is only to be recovered as if a fine has been imposed. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Conviction of company and A2 - Company sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25, 000/- - A2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month - A2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15 lacs to the complainant - Appeal against - Appellate Court while admitting appeal directed them to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs each - Held, impugned order is not sustainable - Amount of compensation must be a reasonable amount - A2 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac - Since fine alone has been imposed on company which can be suspended during appeal. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - If transactions are witnessed by power of attorney or he has full knowledge of the transactions, his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not issued for a debt or liability - Burden of proof is on the accused. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Accused cannot be convicted u/s 138 of the Act. (Zaheeda Kazi Vs Mrs.Sharina Ashraff Khan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (BOMBAY) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Detailed reasons need not to be given. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal appearance - Cheque amount Rs.2 lakhs - Exemption granted from personal appearance on deposit of an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT

CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Has to be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence - Defence set up in reply to notice not to be looked into at that stage. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee - Bank account closed after issuance of cheque - Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured - No criminal liability for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank; (ii) Cheque when presented for payment, was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date on which it was issued in blank; (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or liability - Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya

Mahantesh), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.) : 2007(2) AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 213 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Despatch of notice within 30 days is the requirement of law - Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant. (Ravi Vs Kuttappan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through registered post at correct address - Notice received back `unclaimed' - Held, notice is presumed to have been served. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Forms part of the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the veracity of the allegations is not to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of the evidence which is yet to come on record. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT

CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer - Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable -

Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - - Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability - Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lacs - Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court - Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.I. - Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques - Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards - Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option - Held, as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint Condonation of delay - First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint - Application be decided after hearing the parties. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 - Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 - Petitioner was not Director at the material time - Proceedings against petitioner, quashed . (Dr.(Mrs.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and/or compensation - Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid, consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks - In the instant case interest at the rate of 8%

per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per registered post and also as per UPC - Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by endorsing false report - Notice sent under UPC received by addressee - Service of notice denied by filing affidavit - Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit - It is liable to be deemed that there was no sufficient service of notice - Proceedings quashed. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) but, it was dishonoured; (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable; and (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Company - Director resigned prior to issuance of cheque - No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (Lachhman P.Udhani & Ors. Vs M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Not received by accused - Cheque presented again - Bank not accepting the cheque - Bank had no occasion either to honour or dishonour the cheque - No cause of action - Complaint dismissed. (Manibhadra Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 47 - Dishonour of cheque - Expert opinion - Signature on cheque disputed - Court undertook exercise of naked comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused - Court should be assisted by experts opinion - Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of accused or not with reference to specimen signatures - Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant - Acquittal not valid. (Rajendra Prasad Vs M.Shivaraj), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee - Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act. (Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Provision of Section 446 of Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act - Order staying proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act, quashed. (Gyan Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to give sworn statement on behalf of his principal - Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of power of attorney justified. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Description should be clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter - Husband neither a general nor special power of attorney holder - In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the cheque - Held, complainant not competent to institute the complaint - Complaint quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - `Within a period of six months' -

Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months. (Nanu Vs Vijayan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption - Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount - No legally enforceable debt - Acquittal, held, proper. (V.Rama Shetty Vs N.Sasidaran Nayar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant - Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default - Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an order on merits. (V.R.Jayasankar Vs K.G.Dharman & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Winding up orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed - Complaint against Directors of Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed is not maintainable. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures denied Handwriting expert - When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque - In case of denial of signature of drawer of a cheque, the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and not a handwriting expert - Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law. (H.M.Satish Vs B.N.Ashok), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in default - Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was essential on the crucial date - Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was dismissed without considering the said question. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction - Complaint ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 143-- (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.143 of the Act. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Process issued - Quashing of proceedings - Cheque not presented within its validity period i.e. six months - Liability u/s 138 of Act not incurred - Proceedings quashed. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #3: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - For invoking criminal liability under S.138 of the Act, cheque is required to be presented to the drawee bank or the payee bank within the period of six months from the date of its issue. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Default sentence - Accused to undergo two months SI on failure to pay compensation amount within two months - Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running. (K.G.Girish Kumar Vs M/s Muthoot Capital Service Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 704 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 143 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 86 : 2007(1) KERLJ 161 : 2007(1)

KERLT 16 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 103 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Accused appeared through counsel and moved an application for exemption from his personal appearance - Application dismissed and non bailable warrants issued and also issued process u/ss 82/83 Cr.P.C. - Order set aside - Issue of non bailable warrants and issue of process u/ss 82/83 Cr.P.C. is not required when accused is represented through his counsel and it is not a case where he is absconding and evading the court process. (Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs State), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (DELHI) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against - Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused transacting business on behalf of company on commission basis - Accused purchasing potatoes from complainant on behalf of company - Accused issued cheque in discharge of debt of company Held, accused is validly prosecution - Conviction upheld. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through private courier service - Presumption of service of notice is not available - Presumption of service of notice is available only when notice is sent by post, properly addressed, prepaying and sent by registered post - Held, in absence of date of service of notice of demand, summoning order quashed. (Deepak Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 631 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liabilities - Dishonour of such cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. Vs Umesh Sharma), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Misutilisation of blank signed cheque - Sending cheque to handwriting expert - Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution - Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007

NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints filed - Trial for each offence held separately and accused convicted - Held, it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence - Refusal of Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints are maintainable - However, in case single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a single transaction, permitting a single trial. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant - Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.P.C. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint through power of attorney holder - Power of attorney - If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or the validity of the same. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of Magistrate in the same district - CJM erroneously took cognizance - Complaint returned to be presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction - Complaint beyond limitation when filed in Court of Magistrate - Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the district, but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and, therefore, it may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked - Held, once the Court of CJM had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the period provided for limitation would stop running from the day it was presented in the said Court - Complaint, held within limitation. (V.K.Soman Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 : 2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 : 2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Manager filed complaint - Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL

COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction - Court at place where cheque was presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs State of Maharashtra), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (BOMBAY) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued - Not a ground to quash complaint - It is a matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law. (M/s.Shirdi Overseas Imports & Exports & Anr. Vs M/s.Serve Overseas & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice - Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed. (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount - Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Revision - Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers - Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit - Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account, as true and correct - Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held, not proper - Accused liable to conviction. (Ganesh Enterprises, Bangalore Vs D.R.Sarala), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131

#16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of books of account maintained by complainant - Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.P.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.P.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment - Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant - At the fag end of trial, reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.Gunmala & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M.P.) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Cheque issued in name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued - Notice issued in itself defective - Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed through power of attorney holder - Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed - Complaint, held, rightly dismissed. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 3 days in filing complaint- Condonation - Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT.) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners - Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transitory bail - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque - Accused living at Chandigarh - Case pending before Court at Jaipur - Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days - Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U.T. Chandigarh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) :

2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent - Receipt of notice denied - On the other hand prayer made for dismissal of complaint on plea that complaint is barred by time in view of notice served by complainant - Held, these are inconsistent pleas and are self contradictory and an afterthought which is apparently carved out to resist the claim of complainant. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice returned with endorsement that addressee did not claim the notice and the persons in occupation did not receive the intimation and not as 'No such addressee' - Presumption that addressee resides at that address is proper. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personnel appearance - Petitioner, a household lady, having two school going children - Petitioner has to also look after her old mother-in-law besides two school going children - Occurrence 5 years old - Exemption from personal appearance granted. (Anita Nanda Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 789 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 151 (P&H) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Law does not mandate proof of original transaction or existence of original consideration - In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act, Criminal Court is not to adjudicate on the liability to discharge with the cheque is alleged to be issued. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque issued as security for transaction between the parties - When blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority to the person, to whom it is issued, to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to Bank - On dishonour of cheque accused is not absolved of the liability. (Moideen Vs Johny), 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 220 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 542 (NOC) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Magistrate before dismissing the complaint in default should record reasons as to why he does not deem it proper to adjourn the hearing - When no such reasons are forthcoming, complaint ordered to be restored. (Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 836 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (P&H) : 2006(4) REC CRI R 680 : 2006 CRI LJ 3172 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non appearance of accused due to illness - Process not issued - Single default not sufficient to dismiss the complaint in default when cause shown by complainant for absence is not disbelieved. (Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 836 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (P&H) : 2006(4) REC CRI R 680 : 2006 CRI LJ 3172 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Defective notice - Name of bank incorrectly mentioned - It is a defective notice - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time - Held, cause of action begins to run not on the issuance of a defective notice but it started to run on issuance of notice on dishonour of cheque for the second time. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence when committed It is not giving of notice which makes offence - It is the receipt of notice by drawer which gives cause of action - Cause of action is complete when drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice - Offence is deemed to have been committed only from the date when notice period expires - Normally cause does not arise until the commission of offence. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR

905 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signed blank cheque Defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently suspicious - Burden rests heavily on shoulders of account holder to claim absolution from culpable liability. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued but no complaint filed - Cheque can be presented for the second time and complaint filed on fresh cause of action in case : (i) Envelope addressed to the complainant is lost or damaged or destroyed in transit; (ii) the letter does not reach the respondent for want of correct address; (iii) the envelope so received by the respondent is short of notice and it is blank; (iv) the letter so posted is not received by the actual addressee and the postage is stolen in transit; and (v) As assured and promised by the respondent, the cheque has been tendered for the second time. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Jurisdiction Every Judicial Magistrate in a district has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint - However, only jurisdictional Magistrate has power to try the same - If any Magistrate not empowered by law to do any other thing including to take cognizance of an offence, but may have erroneously in good faith done that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground that he was not empowered. (Soman Achari Vs Sabu Jacob), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of payment not made in notice - Held, it is not a legal notice strictly in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of debt - It is a negotiable instrument - Dishonour of cheque - Drawer of cheque incurs liability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. (S.T.P. Limited, Bangalore Vs Usha Paints & Decorators, Bangalore & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA) #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre mature complaint Cannot be rejected on this ground alone - However, cognizance can be taken on such a complaint after it is matured. (Yogendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Ashok Kumar Goyal & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 334 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 129 (RAJ.) : 2007(1) ALJ (EE) 82 : 2007(2) RAJLW 1501 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Appeal against It is necessary for Appellate Court to find out as to what facts are established and whether on the basis of such facts, any presumption get attracted or rebutted in order to draw appropriate inferences. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated cheque When a drawer deliver a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Notice received by family member of drawer - No evidence led by drawer to

prove that he did not receive notice through member of his family - Acquittal of accused on ground of want of service of notice is bad in law - Accused convicted. (Umraz Khan Vs A.Jameel Ahmed & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 433 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (KARNATAKA) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - In default to undergo imprisonment - Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when payment is made either before or after default sentence starts running. (Girish Vs Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 856 (KERALA) #21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice given to company - Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required - Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal. (K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.P.) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Assurance given to present cheque again and that it will be honoured - Tendering of cheque for the second time will not frustrate the cause of action which arose on tendering the cheque for the second time. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - An application or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary Sufficient cause can be shown in the complaint itself or in the application for condonation of delay or in the affidavit, if any, or in other materials which would be sufficient to satisfy the Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - If there is a delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after hearing the respondent Court should satisfy itself as to whether complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the specified period - A detailed inquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Notice After amendment of Act notice can be sent within one month of receipt of information of dishonour of cheque. (Nagendra Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (PATNA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 999 (PATNA) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Nominated Director - Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt. - Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held, even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - On date fixed complainant fell ill - Counsel also did not appear - Complaint dismissed in default - A party cannot be made to suffer for negligence of his counsel - Dismissal set aside. (Kulwant Singh Vs Balhar Singh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 601 (P&H) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. - No interference called for. (G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back unserved as door locked for several days - It must be deemed that notice has been served Order returning complaint set aside with a direction to take the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law. (Pavulmanickam Vs M.S.Jeyachandran), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 622 (MADRAS) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory of cheque - Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act - Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - By imposing the sentence of imprisonment alone complainant cannot recover the money from accused - Accused directed to pay compensation equal to that of cheque amount. (Selvaraj Vs N.Jeyaraman), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 869 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Accused convicted and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days - By imposing the sentence of imprisonment alone, complainant cannot recover the money from the accused - Accused directed to pay a compensation equal to that of cheque amount. (Selvaraj Vs N.Jeyaraman), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 869 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque alleged to be forged before filing complaint - Held, if offence is committed pertaining to document prior to its production in Court and when it was not in custody of Court then bar u/s 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. does not arise and complainant is at liberty to file complaint and take action as per law. (Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 509 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint under section 138 of the Act - Cheque alleged to be forged before filing complaint - Accused lodged complaint under sections 464, 468, 389, 420 r/w section 511 IPC - Bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not applicable - In the interest of justice both matters ordered to be heard and disposed by same Court together and at the same time. (Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT

CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 509 (BOMBAY) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration Account number changed without consent of drawer as drawer of cheque had closed the account of which the cheque was issued - Amounts to material alteration - Instrument void in law - No action lies u/s 138 of the Act. (B.Krishna Reddy Vs B.K.Somashekara Reddy), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 526 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of Company, its Chairman, Managing Director and Director - Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company - No evidence except affidavit of complainant - Petitioner did not sign the cheque - Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same - Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company - Summoning of petitioner quashed. (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption - Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount - No legally enforceable debt - Acquittal, held, proper. (V.Rama Shetty Vs N.Sasidaran Nayar), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 815 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 536 (KARNATAKA) #15: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - For valid reasons - Burden of proving that cheque was not dishonoured for sufficient funds and was dishonoured for valid reasons is on the accused - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (Nagendra Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (PATNA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 999 (PATNA) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Service of notice Where sender dispatched notice by post with correct address written on it, then presumption can be drawn that it is served on the addressee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. (Armstrong Builders & Developers Vs Vishvanath Naik), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1099 (BOMBAY) #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures - Handwriting expert - Accused did not dispute the handwriting on the cheque - Opinion of handwriting expert not necessary - Application filed by accused to that effect rightly dismissed. (Mangal Singh & Anr. Vs M/s.Khurana Chemicals), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (RAJASTHAN) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued for discharge of a time barred debt - Held, such a cheque is within the sweep of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Only the drawer of cheque is liable - A payee or an endorser is not liable under Section 138 of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Absence of averment in complaint that accused is incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and as to how and in what manner he was so responsible - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Anil Kumar Vs State & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 739 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1038 (DELHI)

#21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Misdescription of accused as proprietor whereas he was a partner - Complaint not to be rejected on this ground. (Anil Kumar Vs State & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 739 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1038 (DELHI) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Can be served either through Registered Post or through UPC - Notice if dispatched through UPC with correct address of the drawer written on it, presumption of service of notice arises unless the drawer proves that it was not received by him in fact and that he was not responsible for such non service. (V.K.Jain Vs Sharad Jagtiani), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 781 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 887 (DELHI) #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Sleeping partner - Not liable - Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act - To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business. (K.K.Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 - Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal against - Suspension of sentence - Appellate Court has power to direct payment of compensation, in whole or any part thereof, awarded by Magistrate as a condition precedent for suspending substantive sentence. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (BOMBAY) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Criminal complaint - Prosecution if ultimately found to be frivolous or otherwise mala fide, Court may direct registration of case against complainant for mala fide prosecution of accused - Accused is also entitled to file a suit for damages. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that at the relevant time he was not the Director of Company as this question can only be decided at the trial. (M/s S.B. & T.International Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 921 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (BOMBAY) : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 438 : 2006 CRI LJ 1541 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 494 : 2006(2) AIRBOMR 275 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 474 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 438 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 8 : 2006(4) ICC 278 : 2006(2) RECCRIR 950

#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Proof - A.D. is a clear proof of service of notice. (Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs Syed Issac Basha), 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 438 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1586 : AIR 2006 KAR 546 NOC : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 475 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 342 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 438 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 38 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 221 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 944 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 76 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 379 : 2006 BANKJ 531 : 2006(2) CRIMES 525 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 1400 : 2006(2) KCCR 835 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 231 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 19 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque signed by authorised signatory - Held, on cheque being dishonoured it is the principal who is liable. (Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs Syed Issac Basha), 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 438 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1586 : AIR 2006 KAR 546 NOC : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 475 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 342 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 438 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 38 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 221 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 944 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 76 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 379 : 2006 BANKJ 531 : 2006(2) CRIMES 525 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 1400 : 2006(2) KCCR 835 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 231 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 19 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Power of attorney holder can file complaint - Sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded at the very inception - However, during trial payee has to enter the witness box and depose about the legal liability of the drawer, issuance of cheque, presentation of cheque for payment, dishonour of the cheque, issuance of statutory notice, etc. (Muthukaruppan Vs Raghavan), 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (MADRAS) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) KLT 996 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - L.R's - Proceedings u/s 138 cannot be initiated against legal heirs of the person who issued the cheque. (Smt.Kamla & Ors. Vs C.P.Bhardwaj), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 203 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 58 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 754 : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 448 : 2006(4) RECCIVR 799 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 NI Act - Death during pendency of revision - Held, even after the death of the accused who is the revision petitioner the revision petition survives and Court can pass appropriate orders with regard to the sentence of fine. (Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 145 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 255 (KERALA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - If cognizance is taken after expiry of 15 days contemplated under Section 138 then premature presentation will not affect the case of the complainant. (Raju Vs Jaiprakash), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 148 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 166 (KARNATAKA) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Civil suit - Pendency of Not a bar for launching proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Raju Vs Jaiprakash), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 148 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 166 (KARNATAKA) #11: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of double the amount Provision as to issuance of notice is satisfied when notice is issued within prescribed time, at the correct address with particular details of cheque, their dates, amounts, the date of presentation of the cheques and the dates when the cheques were returned with the endorsement of the bank as to the reasons of dishonour and demand of money - When these particulars are clearly set out in the notice the object of giving notice is satisfied - Drawer is absolved of his liability if payment of amount covered by cheque is made within 15 days of receipt of notice - Notice has to be read as a whole - Reference to the settlement entered into between the parties and liability of the drawer to the tune of double the amount do not render the notice illegal and discharge of the accused. (Balraj Kumar Vs Smt.Kuldeep Kaur), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable - There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.141 cannot be said to be

satisfied. (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed through power of attorney holder - Power of Attorney holder is competent to speak of facts within his exclusive personal knowledge. (Anirudhan Vs Philip Jacob), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 182 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 130 (KERALA) : 2006(3) KLT 554 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal against conviction Suspension of sentence - Sentence suspended subject to deposit of 25% of compensation amount - Held, imposition of such condition not improper. (Suresh Vs Satpuda Urban Credit Coop. Society Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 424 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 732 (BOMBAY) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration Alteration in the year `96' - Amounts to material alteration - Accused acquitted. (Starline Agencies Vs R.B.Agencies), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 96 (KER) : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 309 : 2006(2) KERLJ 405 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Order of imprisonment and fine - No order as to compensation - Order of sentence and fine set aside Matter remitted for decision afresh on the question of sentence and award of compensation. (Rajendra Ramsing Ghorpade Vs Shikshan Prasarak Mandal), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 325 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 934 (BOMBAY) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued alongwith order for supply of goods - Goods not supplied - Cheque dishonoured - Held, no offence is committed u/s 138 of the Act. (Supply House Vs Ullas), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 555 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 132 (KER.) : 2006 CRILJ 4330 : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 90 : 2007(1) KERLJ 63 : 2006(3) KERLT 921 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Partners - No averment in complaint that partners were incharge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm - In absence of such an averment it cannot be said that partners are guilty of the offence - Prosecution does not lie against a partner on the simple accusation in the complaint that such person was the partner of the firm - Proceedings against partners quashed. (D.P.Jain & Ors. Vs Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt.Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (BOMBAY) : 2006(5) MAH LJ 705 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 9-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Purchaser of cheque is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the purchaser. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course

- Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank - Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back `unclaimed' - Due service of notice is available only when an intimation as to arrival of registered letter in post office is given to addressee and addressee fails to collect it from post office. (Chacko Vs Kurian), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 405 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 246 (KERALA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability - Premises taken on rent - Premises vacated before the expiry of lease period in breach of agreement - Held, there is no legal obligation on the part of accused to effect clearance of cheque issued towards the rental liabilities for the period he is not in occupation - Remedy available is to sue for damages for breach of contract. (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheques - Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability - No existing or past liability at the time of issuance of cheque - For prosecution u/s 138 of the Act it is necessary that cheque should have been issued in respect of either past or current existing debt or other legal liability. (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648 #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Different cheque number - Cheque number different than that reflected in the settlement deed entered into between the partners - Factum of agreement of liability admitted - Number of cheque presented, number of cheque reflected in notice and number of cheque mentioned in complaint same - Drawer of cheque cannot take any benefit of different number being mentioned in settlement deed - Question of liability is a matter of defence that can be raised at the appropriate stage - Court not to consider this issue in the context of the settlement at the stage of charge or discharge of the accused. (Balraj Kumar Vs Smt.Kuldeep Kaur), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -Cheque issued after closure of account - Cheque dishonoured - Provision of S.138 is applicable. (Bal Krishnan Sharma Vs Tek Ram), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 700 (H.P.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 960 (H.P.) #2: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A person who issues the cheque which ultimately turns out to be bad is the person on whom the liability can be fastened under the Act - If a cheque has been issued by some other person from his account then in that eventuality nobody except the person who draws this cheque can be held liable. (Gulshan Kumar Vs Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Accrual Cheque presented twice - On dishonour of cheque for the first time an intimation given that cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient fund - Mere giving an intimation without demand of cheque amount is not a notice within the meaning of S.138 of the Act - Held, cause of action arose when notice of demand was issued on dishonour of cheque for the second time and complaint filed thereafter - Held, complaint is within time. (Bank of Baroda Vs Philip Thomas), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (P&H) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 448 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 50 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2838 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 746 : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 274 : 2006(3) KERLJ 226 : 2006(3) KERLT 729 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Supply of goods on credit Blank cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liability - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 cannot be inferred - Cheque issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on date

of cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s.Shreyas Agro Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chandrakumar S.B.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 014 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1168 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3140 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 242 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 749 #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Required ingredients fully proved - Single line in cross examination that first talk of business deal took place in Jan-Feb. 2000 not sufficient to disbelieve complainant's case - Evidence has to be read as a whole Evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clearly established fact of transaction between parties prior to 2000 Presumption u/s 139 in favour of complainant - No evidence led to rebut presumption - Non production of papers of income tax by complainant in trial not a ground to disbelieve complainant's case - Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (CALCUTTA) #6: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of Magistrate to impose sentence of fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Accused convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act Magistrate can only impose a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs.5000/- - In view of provisions of S.29 Cr.P.C. imposition of penalty or fine of Rs.1, 50, 000/- by Magistrate not proper. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (CALCUTTA) #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused Summons case - Complaint under S.138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - Accused raised defence at pre trial stage - Considering the defence Magistrate ordered stoppage of proceedings and issued show cause notice to complainant to pay compensation for filing false complaint Illegal hence quashed. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4) AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 : 2005(3) GUJLR 2474 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused Summons case - Complaint under S.138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - It is not a case instituted otherwise than on complaint - Provisions of S.258 not attracted. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4) AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 : 2005(3) GUJLR 2474 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advocates fee - Arrears of fees due to an Advocate is a legally enforceable debt. (Tamil Nadu Retrenched Census Employees Association Vs Thennan), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (MADRAS) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 512 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 199 (MADRAS) : 2007(3) AKAR 412 : 2006(3) KERLT 782 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued for supply of goods - Goods defective and not according to specifications hence rejected and returned - No liability to pay under cheque. (Keygien Global Limited, Bangalore Vs Madhav Impex, Bangalore & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 595 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 995 (KARNATAKA) #11: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was issued without consideration and was obtained by fraud Allegations in complaint prima facie made out offence - Materials which accused seeks to rely upon for contesting the allegations made in the complaint are yet to be proved - Without their formal proof by evidence before the trial Court it cannot be held in these proceedings that cheque was issued without consideration or that the same was obtained by complainant fraudulently - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Kanta Verma Vs Surinder Gupta & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (J&K) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 896 (J&K) : 2006 CRI LJ 1909 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 681 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 374 : 2005 JKJ(SUPP) 638 #12: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant gave Rs. 2, 00, 000/- to `A' - `A' gave said amount to `B' who issued cheque of Rs.2, 00, 000/- in favour of complainant which was dishonoured - `A' is not liable for prosecution. (Gulshan Kumar Vs

Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. can be given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant Son of deceased is entitled to continue the proceedings. (Tripuraneni Sri Prasad Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : AIR 2007 NOC 271 (AP) : 2007(4) AKAR 601 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 116 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 469 AP #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation expiring on a holiday - Complaint can be filed on the next working day. (M/s Mediworld Infotech, Hyderabad Vs M/s C.E.I. Consultancy & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 746 (A.P.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 695 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2566 : 2006(5) ALJ(NOC) 999 : 2006(6) AKAR(NOC) 822 : 2006(5) AIRBOMR 796 NOC: 2006(2) ALD (CRI) 95 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 524 : 2006 ALLMR (CRI) 174 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 125 AP : 2006(4) EASTCRIC 271 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Defence of accused cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and the same can be considered appropriately at the stage of trial. (M/s Prasanna Gases Vs State), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 783 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 170 (RAJASTHAN) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence During special leave before Supreme Court both parties filed joint petition for compromise Compromise lawful - Permission granted to compromise the dispute - Conviction set aside. (Sayeed Ishaque Memon Vs Ansari Naseer Ahmed & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (S.C.) #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Sentence of fine of Rs.1, 25, 000/- - Power of Magistrate to impose fine Rs.5, 000/- only - Sentence of fine modified and fine of Rs.5, 000/- imposed and in default of payment of fine petitioner to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. (Jitesh Kumawat Vs Ashok Kumar & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 559 (RAJASTHAN) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - No averment that applicant is partner of the firm or that he was incharge and responsible to the firm at the time of issuance of cheque - Process against applicant quashed. (Jose Cristovam Pinto & Anr. Vs Sahajanand Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 77 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 276 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 1526 : AIR 2006 NOC 458 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALJ 502 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR BOM HCR 086 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 60 (SOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 421 : 2006(43) ALL IND CAS 174 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 2863 : 2006 BANKING J 562 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 369 : #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non service of notice with postal endorsement of 'refusal' or 'unclaimed' or 'not found' - This matter is to be decided after recording evidence Complainant can prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law - Drawer can also prove that postal endorsement is false. (D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 01 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 057 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3) AIR JHAR RHCR 324 : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 21346 : 2006(4) ALL MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI.) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J 577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 : 2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 : 2006(2) CUR CC 312 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 : 2006(4) ICC 26 : 2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI.) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI.) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 : 2006(2) PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 : 2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non availability of addressee - There is no rule of universal application that in all case where notice is not served on account of non availability of the addresse, the court must presume service of notice - It depends upon facts of each case - If complainant is able to prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law, the Court shall presume service of notice - This is a matter of evidence - Drawer can also establish by evidence that postal endorsement of 'refusal' or unclaimed' or 'not found' during delivery time to be false - Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non service of notice. (D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 01 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 057 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3) AIR JHAR RHCR 324 : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 21346 : 2006(4) ALL MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI.) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J 577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 : 2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 : 2006(2) CUR CC 312 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 : 2006(4) ICC 26 : 2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI.) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI.) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 : 2006(2) PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 : 2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint filed by Managing Director - A responsible officer or office bearer of Company can file complaint u/s 138 of the Act Question whether such officer had been specifically authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Company does not arise at all. (Sarathi Leasing Finance Limited, Mangalore Vs B.Narayana Shetty), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 653 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 976 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 875 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 445 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 852 : 2006(3) ALCRILR 545 : 2006 BANKJ 650 : 2006(131) COMCAS 798 : 2006(73) CORLA 165 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 139 : 2006(4) ICC 284 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1929 : 2006(3) KANTLJ 397 #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against L.R's of the person who issued the cheque - Not maintainable - Proceedings and process issued against L.R's quashed - Compensation of Rs.5, 000/- awarded for launching proceeding which was absolutely untenable in law. (Savita & Ors. Vs Rajesh Damodar Sarode & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 751 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 2229 : AIR 2006 BON 781 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALJ 700 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR 553 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 271 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 88 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 1307 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 490 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 872 : 2006(4) CUR CC 212 : 2006(4) CUR CRI R 296 : 2006(4) ICC 381 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 845 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - 'Account freezed' on account of winding up proceedings - Company having issued cheque for subsisting liability is bound to see that cheques are honoured at any cost - Freezing of account is not on account of act of complainant but it is on account of act of accused - Accused has to answer the claim of the complainant even in case the accounts are freezed on account of winding up proceedings initiated against the accused. (Counter Point Advt. P.Ltd. rep by its Director, Mr.Naresh Purushotham Vs Harita Finance Limited), 2006(3) CIVILL COURT CASES 286 (MADRAS) #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint - Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003 - Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul Kohli & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back with postal endorsement 'Not claimed' - It means that accused was in the knowledge that a notice is sent and he intentionally avoided to receive the same - Presumption is that notice was served. (M/s.C & C Enterprises, Hyderabad Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 924 (A.P.) : AIR 2007 NOC 119 (A.P.) : 2006(6) ALJ 697 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 316 AP #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable deft Money lending business alleged - If a person is advancing money casually and not professional

money-lender, there is no necessity for obtaining any licence and in that event the debt is legally enforceable. (S.V.Rao Vs M/s.Credential Finance Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 917 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against partners - Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Can be filed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of complainant However, he can appear as a witness on behalf of complainant. (M/s G.J.Packaging Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s S.S.Sales & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ (NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC) 209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J 244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Can be filed by power of attorney holder of payee - When a power of attorney holder has full knowledge of the transaction his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint. (M/s G.J.Packaging Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s S.S.Sales & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ (NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC) 209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J 244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270 #6: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Issuance of cheque after closure of account Cheque dishonoured - Provision of S.138 is applicable to a cheque drawn on a closed account. (Bal Krishnan Sharma Vs Tek Ram), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (H.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (H.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1993 : 2006(4) ALJ 678 (NOC) : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 84 (SOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 378 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 491 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 201 (JS) : 2006 BANK JS 901 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 886 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 311 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 406 : 2006(1) SHIM LC 385 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation Day on which cause of action accrues has to be excluded for reckoning period of limitation for filing complaint. (Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ashoka Alloy Steel Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 495 (S.C.) : 2006(9) SCC 340 : 2006(4) RCR(CRL.) 58 : 2006(4) RCR(C) 152 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque if issued for security or for any other purpose the same does not come within the purview of S.138 of the Act. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Business dealing - Cheque alleged to be towards outstanding dues - Account books not produced by complainant Contention of accused that cheque was issued as security believed - Conviction set aside. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT

HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Suspension during pendency of appeal - Appellate Court can pass appropriate interim orders of suspension with any conditions or terms as may warrant in circumstances in respect of compensation awarded under sub-section (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. (S.Haneef Vs M.Shafath Ali Khan & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A.P.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) (DB) #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compensation - Granted under sub-section (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. is to be recovered only as if it were a fine. (S.Haneef Vs M.Shafath Ali Khan & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A.P.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) (DB) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Money financing business - Complainant doing finance business and having a Pvt. Ltd. Co. - But in the instant case loan given in his individual capacity - It was not elicited from complainant that he is financing to may others including the accused in his individual capacity - It is not correct to hold that complainant is doing money lending business in his individual capacity and requires a money lending licence - Held, debt is legally enforceable debt. (S.V.Rao Vs M/s.Credential Finance Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 917 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed by power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded at the very inception - Only during the course of trial, the payee will have to come to the box and speak from his knowledge about the legal liability of the drawer, issuance of cheque, presentation of the cheque for payment, dishonour of the cheque, issuance of statutory notice etc. (T.Muthukaruppan Vs G.Raghavan), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1061 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1078 : 2006(3) ALJ 510 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 344 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 443 (NOC): 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 424 (NOC): 2006(55) ALL CRI C 24 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 767 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 407 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 273 (JS) : 2006(3) BANK CAS 423 : 2006(1) CTC 635 : 2006(2) CRIMES 239 : 2006(2) CUR CRI R 277 : 2006(3) ICC 195 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 241 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Can be enforced by imposing a sentence in default. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs Capt.Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR 210 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J 557 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC 693 : 2006(1) MAH LJ 700 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A witness whose name does not appear in the list of witnesses (in the instant case list of witnesses not filed) can be examined as a witness in view of S.254(1) of the Code - S.204(2) does not override S.254(1) of the Code. (Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 713 : 2006 CRI LJ 3114 : 2006(6) AKAR 818 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 96 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 1560 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 429 : 2006(4) CRIMES 434 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director of company whether incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company is a question which has to be answered at the trial and complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (Pankaj Narang Vs State & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (DELHI) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 971 (DELHI) : 127 (2006) DLT 670 : AIR 2007 NOC 45 (DELHI) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE)

698 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 341 : 2006(127) DLT 670 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 698 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Accused in turn filed criminal complaint for committing forgery by filing a higher amount in the cheque Held, separate complaint not maintainable - Complaint can be filed by the Court where forged cheque is presented. (M.Ravi & Ors. Vs Elumalai Chettiar), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 362 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1059 : 2006(3) ALJ 511 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 347 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 426 (NOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 765 : 2006(3) ICC 171 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavit in support thereof - Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner, Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation, S.Kota), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A.P.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Time barred debt - Cheque issued for discharge of time barred debt - Prior to issuance of cheque accused executed an affidavit/undertaking admitting the loan amount and confirming the outstanding balance - Debt becomes legally enforceable debt - Cheque given in payment of such debt if dishonoured then accused is liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Contract Act, 1872, S.25(3). (Narendra V.Kanekar Vs The Bardez-Taluka Co-op. Housing Mortgage Society Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 946 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 56 : 2006 CRI LJ 3111 : AIR 2006 BOM 1096 (NOC) : 2006(6) AKAR 824 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR JHAR HCR 729 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 673 : 2006(3) ALL MR 673 : 2006(6) BOM CR 874 : 2006(7) MAH LJ 11 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Appeal - Suspension of sentence - If the very order appealed against is suspended, the sentence flowing therefrom automatically gets suspended - Separate order for suspension of sentence is not required in case order appealed against is suspended. (V.Chandrasekaran Vs R.Nagarajan), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 913 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 353 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act Appeal - Show cause notice as to removal from service on account of judgment of conviction - If judgment of conviction is not suspended accused has to forego his employment even while appeal preferred by him against the judgment of conviction is pending. (V.Chandrasekaran Vs R.Nagarajan), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 913 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 353 #22: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - During pendency of proceedings parties compromised - Payment to be made in instalments - Complaint quashed in view of compromise - In case payment not made as agreed and as per schedule then complainant to get revive the complaint. (M/s.Sigma Diagnostics Ltd. & Ors. Vs Gurjeet Singh Kohli), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 744 (P&H) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 937 (P&H) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of cheque amount through paper publication - Provision of S.138 of the Act not complied with Complaint quashed. (Salvaji Prabhakar Rao Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 745 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 953 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 369 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALJ 702 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 989 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 326 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 236 (JS) : 2006(2) ALT(CRI.) 282 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 721 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal - Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal - Condition of depositing compensation amount can be imposed - When amount of compensation is heavy Court can direct deposit of a reasonable amount - In exceptional cases it can be granted without requiring deposit of compensation amount - In the instant case condition imposed to deposit 50% of cheque amount for suspending order directing payment of compensation - Proper. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs Capt.Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR

210 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J 557 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC 693 : 2006(1) MAH LJ 700 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Director - Not signatory of cheque - No specific averment in complaint that he is in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (P.Sivanandam Vs Sri Srinivasa Marketing Co. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 612 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 041 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 226 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 490 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 526 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 179 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI) 113 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 645 : 2006(4) ICC 414 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Wrong implication of a person as accused - Complainant on its own or trial Court can give opportunity to drop any or all of the accused persons - In case complainant insists to continue proceedings against all or any of the accused persons then Magistrate while deciding the matter finally may pass observations or strictures for wrong implication of all or any of the accused and may also initiate proceedings u/ss 211 or 340 Cr.P.C. (Daljeet Singh Chandok Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 199 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 308 (DELHI) : 2006(1) REC CRI R 958 : 2006(1) AD (DELHI) 457 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non appearance of complainant - Dismissal in default and acquittal of accused - No mention in order that accused was present on that day - If complainant is absent on a particular day and his presence on that day is quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint is not a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. - Order of acquittal set aside and complaint restored. (M/s.Jindal Pipes Ltd. Vs M/s.Beard Sell Satec Ltd.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 783 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 3170 : 2006(5) AIR BOM HCR 861 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALL MR 31 (JS) : 2006(2) CRIMES 320 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 534 : 2006(4) RCR(CRI.) 678 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cheque also subject matter of arbitration proceedings - Not a ground for stay of complaint u/s 138 of the Act. (Guracharan Singh & Anr. Vs M/s Allied Motors Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 72 (S.C.) : 2006 CRIL LJ 360 : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 276 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 5487 : 2006(2) BANK CAS 575 : 2006(2) ICC 641 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 29 : 2005(10) SCC 626 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1653 #4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint u/s 138 - Dismissal in default at the stage of arguments - Order dismissing the complaint in default not justified and the said order can be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - Complaint restored. (Monika Jindal & Ors. Vs Pardeep Khanna & Ors.), 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 958 (P&H) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 10 (P&H) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Amendment Correction of cheque number - Confusion in number of cheque occurred due to rubber stamp overlapping on the cheque number - If correction of cheque number is permitted it will not ipso facto prejudice the defence of accused - Amendment allowed. (Balasaheb Vs Abdulla), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 365 (BOMBAY) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Mandate holder' is a person obeying the mandate of another and issuing cheque - Cheque issued by mandate holder when bounces it is the account holder who is liable. (Ravi Chandran Vs Subramanian), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 263 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 53 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) ALJ (EE) 291 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 759 : 2006(1) KERLT 611 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dropping of proceedings Drafts in lieu of cheques issued - Such defence can only be considered at the time of trial Proceedings on such count cannot be dropped. (State Farm Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs M/s Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 455 (S.C.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 679 : 2005 AIRSCW 6301 : 2006(1) AIRKARR 505 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2530 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 415 : 2006(131) COMCAS 147 : 2006 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 174 : 2006 CRILR(SC&MP) SC 174 : ILR(KANT) 2006 SC 579 : 2006(33) OCR 616.1 : 2006(1) ORISSALR 121 : 2006(2) RAJLW 1512 : 2005(5) SLT 609 : 2006 SCC (CRI) 609 : 2006 SCC(CRI) 609

#8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 143-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summary procedure of trial is to be followed - Ss.262 to 265 Cr.P.C. will be applicable for summary trial which cannot be converted in warrant trial in view of Ss.4 & 5 of Cr.P.C. (Steel Tubes of India Vs Steel Authority of India), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (M.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (M.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1988 : 2006(4) ALJ 679 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 602 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 573 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 219 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 229 : 2006(4) ICC 305 : 2006(1) JAB LJ 440 : 2006(1) MPLJ 194 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Execution of cheque admitted - Presumption u/ss 118 and 139 of the Act is available that cheque was issued towards repayment of loan. (Basheer Vs T.N.Radhakrishnan), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 120 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 21 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability to pay - Pleading Details as to how liability towards cheque arose need not to be pleaded - Pleading and proof is required that cheque was issued towards discharge of existing liability and it was presented for encashment and dishonoured for want of funds and he has complied with all statutory formalities provided under the Act. (Basheer Vs T.N.Radhakrishnan), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 120 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 21 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Quantum - In summons case, no separate opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence is required to be given to the accused. (Ajay Bansal Vs Smt.Nirmal Jain), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 289 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Local standi of complainant - Can only be decided at the time of trial - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (M/s.Ravikanth Industries & Anr. Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 777 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2685 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 250 : 2006(2) ALT(CRI.) 211 : 2006(4) ICC 465 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 306 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Concurrent finding - Fine amount deposited - Accused in jail for one month and ten days - Jail sentence suspended during pendency of revision. (Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.), 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1050 (P&H) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 180 (P&H) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Director - Averment in complaint that Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business - It is not necessary that role of each accused should be explained specifically. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bank draft sent after filing of complaint - Complaint cannot be quashed - Payment and receipt is to be proved by adducing evidence in support thereof. (Joginder Singh Sidhu & Anr. Vs Virat Verma), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 152 (P&H) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recalling of process order - Plea that complainant received all amounts due and acknowledged by issuance of receipt after a compromise - Points urged are matters to be decided during trial - Revision dismissed. (M/s Blue Blends (India) Ltd. Vs Thirumagal Mills Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 301 (MADRAS) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Given as security - Payment not made as promised - Post dated cheque itself becomes payable - Cheque dishonoured Accused liable to prosecution. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs P.E.C. Limited), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Director - Resignation - Director of a company is liable if he was a Director of Company on the date of issuance of cheque and was incharge and responsible for running the affairs of company. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs P.E.C. Limited), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI)

#19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Used for second contract whereas given for first contract - First contract successfully completed - Parties having good relations - Second contract entered into between the parties - Hardly any gap between the two contracts - Held, it is plausible and believable on the face of it that the accused could tell the complainant to treat the earlier unused cheque as security for the second contract - Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs P.E.C. Limited), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm - Cheque dishonoured - It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Firm - Managing Partner - Dishonour of cheque Prosecution of Managing partner - Specific averment as to `responsible for conduct of affairs of firm' - Not required when cheque is signed as Managing Partner of the firm. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by a person not authorised by company to present complaint against accused - Complaint not maintainable. (M.G.Brothers Automobiles Ltd. rep. by its General Manager Vs B.Masthan Reddy & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A.P.) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Vehicle found defective against purchase of which cheque was issued - Cheque dishonoured - Accused is liable - It is altogether difference cause of action - Accused is entitled to proceed against the complainant in accordance with law. (M.G.Brothers Automobiles Ltd. rep. by its General Manager Vs B.Masthan Reddy & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A.P.) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Loan taken from `A' Cheque issued in favour of wife of `A' - Cheque dishonoured - Wife of `A' is entitled to prosecute accused. (Smt.Usha Suresh Vs R.V.Shashidaran), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 723 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Normally double the amount of cheque is awarded - Court u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. can award unlimited amount of compensation. (Ajay Bansal Vs Smt.Nirmal Jain), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 289 (P&H) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal against - To suspend sentence with or without sureties is the discretion of the appellate court - Conditions, if imposed, should be reasonable and shall commensurate with or proportionate with the sentence imposed. (P.P.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 949 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1906 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 682 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 328 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 165 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 147 : ILR (KER) 2006(1) KER 723 : 2006(1) KERLJ 473 : 2006(1) KERLT 570 : 2006(2) RECCRIR 534 #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Prosecution of company and directors - Notice to company - It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Alteration in date and drawer's signature differ' Cheque dishonoured - Accused can show that alteration in date or signatures are made not because of insufficiency or paucity of funds - If accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of cheque at the time of presentation of cheques for encashment at the drawer's bank and that the cheques were returned for the valid cause, then the offence u/s 138 of NI Act would not be made out - Complaint cannot be quashed on this

ground. (Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs M/s Kurlon Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 615 (KARNATAKA) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala - For an offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor - Agreement entered into within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Project for which the supply of stone chips and transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made - Held, Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 107 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) : 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 194 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 1683 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 : 2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 : 2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 : 2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 : 2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS 390 : 2006(4) COMLJ 419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP) SC 484 : 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR (KANT #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and compensation Recovery of compensation gets precedence over recovery of fine - If amount recovered is insufficient to meet both, amount recovered must first be applied in payment of compensation and action be taken to recover balance amount - Recovery of compensation by attachment and sale of property of accused does not cease merely because the accused has undergone the whole of the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. (Y.Vishnu Vs S.Venkatesh), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 673 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1853 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 565 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 697 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 526 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 37 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 181 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 942 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 108 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 575 : 2006 BANKJ 528 : 2006(134) COMCAS 314 : 2006(2) CURCRIR 573 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1377 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 389 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 94 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 151-- - Registered society - Dishonour of cheque Offence committed by a registered society - Every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the society for the conduct of the business of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Dishonour of cheque - Letter a communication only or a notice - Make the payment or face legal action - Held, letter qualifies itself as a notice. (Krishna Exports Vs Raju Das), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 740 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1076 (S.C.) : 2004(13) SCC 498 #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque dishonoured for the reason that it had no account number and it was without 'proprietary stamp' - No offence is made out - Offence u/s 138 is made out only when cheque is returned due to insufficient funds and amount exceeds the arrangement. (Abdul Rehman M.Mulgand Vs Mohammad Hashan Mulgand & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 749 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1092 (BOMBAY)

#11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant can voluntarily drop any or all of the accused persons - For wrong implication Magistrate may pass observations or strictures while finally deciding the matter - Magistrate may also initiate proceedings under S.211 IPC or S.340 Cr.P.C. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque must be presented within six months to the bank of drawer and not to the bank of drawee - If cheque is not presented before 6 months to the bank of drawer then it would absolve him of criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Pradeep Kumar Vidyarthi Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1100 (ALLAHABAD) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Company not to be quashed on the ground that possession of fixed assets of company had been taken over by State Financial Corporation - Possession of assets other than fixed assets was not taken over by State Financial Corporation and company was not prevented from disposing of its other assets for payment of debts. (Rajesh Jain Vs M/s DCM Shriram Leasing & Finance Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 180 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (DELHI) : 2005 CRI LJ 2239 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 450 : 2005(32) ALL IND CAS 361 : 2005 BANK J 344 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 455 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 124 : 2005(118) DLT 47 : 2005(3) ICC 760 : 2005(2) PLR 8(2) : 2005(4) RCR(CIV.) 433 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Finding of civil court that cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt and liability - Held, it is not open to Criminal Court to take different view. (M.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V.Kutamba Rao & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Five cheques One notice - Amount of each cheque mentioned specifically and separately - One complaint can be filed though there was one demand notice - In the instant case one complaint filed in respect of four cheques - No illegality. (M.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V.Kutamba Rao & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Five cheques - One notice - Amount of each cheque mentioned specifically and separately - Notice in respect of one cheque not valid - Does not make the entire notice invalid. (M.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V.Kutamba Rao & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not in conformity with the requirement of S.138 of the Act - Not a valid notice for the purpose of putting into motion the process of law under the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Raghuvir Goswami Vs Nirmal Thakur), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 111 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Two notices issued - First notice not being a notice u/s 138 of NI Act cannot be used to count limitation - Second notice a valid notice demanding payment - Limitation to file complaint will begin from second notice. (Raghuvir Goswami Vs Nirmal Thakur), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 111 (DELHI) #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint Complaint not to be dismissed as premature - Trial Court should wait and allow the complainant to establish its case or take cognizance after expiry of stipulated period. (Ganga Ram Vs State of U.P.), 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 828 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3681 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 942 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 289 : 2005(4)

BANK CAS 236 : 2006(1) ICC 541 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Goods purchased on credit - Cheques issued in advance - On the date of issuance of cheque there was nothing due towards the drawer of cheque - Cheque issued was not in discharge of legally enforceable debt - Accused not liable as cheque was issued in advance when there was no legally enforceable debt. (M/s New Tech Pesticides Ltd. Vs M/s Pavan Commercial Corporation & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 159 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 162 (A.P.) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cognizance of offence taken and summons issued - Magistrate thereafter has no power to recall the summons and drop the proceedings Remedy is to invoke S.482 Cr.P.C. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred, then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Incorrect cheque number and date of presentation - Notice is not vitiated - The requirement of the provision of S.138 Proviso (2) is that notice should be in writing and there should be demand of cheque amount - In the instant case name of bank and cheque amount mentioned in notice found to be correct, hence, held, that notice is valid. (Abdul Rehman M.Mulgand Vs Mohammad Hashan Mulgand & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 749 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1092 (BOMBAY) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 145(2), 138-- - Affidavits - Evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of accused and defence witnesses can be taken on affidavit - In case evidence is taken on affidavit then after an application is made by other party under sub-section (2) of S.145, it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed - On filing of an application u/s 145(2) witness must be made available for cross examination by the rival party. (M/s Indo International Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 NI Act in two complaints filed by same complainant - High Court ordered that sentence in both cases shall run concurrently. (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdulla & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Notice sent as per certificate of posting It is a valid notice - There is no mandate of the provision that notice must be sent only by registered post - Notice sent on correct address would be deemed to have been received by addressee. (M.Ramesh Vs Vankadara Sunil Kumar), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (A.P.) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company - Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Firm - Cheque issued by proprietor of firm - Firm not made an accused - Not of much consequence as liability of proprietary concern and proprietor is joint and several. (Rohit Parushram & Ors. Vs Dhiraj Rawal & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 353 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 428 (A.P.)

#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that cheque was not issued towards discharge of a liability - This fact is to be decided in course of trial. (Rohit Parushram & Ors. Vs Dhiraj Rawal & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 353 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 428 (A.P.) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons case converted into warrant case - Charge framed - Evidence of two witnesses recorded after framing of charge - Accused seeking quashing of proceedings - Since it was not contention of accused that charge was groundless, Magistrate was perfectly justified in proceeding with trial - Simply because summons case was converted into warrant case that per se would not result into any illegality. (Shankarrao Vs Pandurang & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (BOMBAY) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 602 (BOMBAY) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not involving moral turpitude - This is an offence in commercial practice. (Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. Vs S.Abdul Latheef), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 390 (KERALA) (DB) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (KERALA) (DB) : 2005(3) KLT 955 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by fax - Complaint not filed Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint filed - Complaint whether beyond limitation? - Question whether fax message was sent or not, when it was sent and when it was received are questions of fact which can only be decided after taking evidence. (M/s.Narmada Enterprises Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 779 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4492 : 2006(1) ALJ 166 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 233 (NOC) : 2005(2) SLD(CRI.) 0736 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 669 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 271 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Complaint is to be tried like summons case - Petition seeking discharge is not maintainable. (M/s.Narmada Enterprises Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 779 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4492 : 2006(1) ALJ 166 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 233 (NOC) : 2005(2) SLD(CRI.) 0736 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 669 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 271 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post at a correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement `Not available' - Accused not stating that notice was sent to a wrong address or that he has not managed to return the notice or that he was out of station during that period - Held, it is due service under S.27 of General Clauses Act. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Managing partner or partner is competent to file complaint. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted - Accused making payment of cheque - Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground - Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement - In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case, Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.P.Heavy Machinery & Engg.Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.P.) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back with postal endorsement that addressee was not available - Burden is on complainant to prove that accused managed to get incorrect postal endorsement made. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - It is an interim order - It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Concurrent running of sentence - Discretion can be exercised by trial Court, appellate court as well as the revisional court - High Court can exercise the power available u/s 427 Cr.P.C. by invoking jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdulla & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post and UCP (Under Certificate of posting) - Notice sent as per registered post returned unserved - UCP did not return - Pleading in complaint viz. 'Hence, it is presumed that U.C.P. has been received by the accused' - Held, it is sufficient to hold that complainant has pleaded as to service of notice on the accused - Averment 'has been received by the accused' shall be construed as 'service of notice'. (P.K.Radha Krishnan Vs Vijayan Nambiar), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 572 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4184 : 2006(1) ALJ 76 (NOC) : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 2440 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 622 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 613 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 263 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 535 : 2006 BANK J 284 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 560 : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 489 : 2005(4) ICC 782(2) : 2005 ILR(KANT.) 4486 : 2005(4) KCCR 2761 : 2005(5) KANT LJ 473 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company - For prosecution of Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company - Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for a consideration which is unlawful - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. (J.Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ 77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 : 2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for compounding a non compoundable offence - Liability arising is not a legally enforceable debt or other liability - An agreement opposed to law or forbidden by law is not enforceable - Held, any debt or liability arising out of a contract or promise, which is unlawful or not legally enforceable, would not constitute an offence u/s 138 of the Act. (J.Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ 77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 : 2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Identity of signatory of a cheque is not a question to be considered by trial Court. (Mathew George Vs Jacob), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1049 (KERALA) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued twice - Earlier notice not under S.138 of the Act - Complaint based on subsequent presentation of cheque and subsequent notice of demand cannot be said to be invalid. (M/s Laltech Engineering Projects Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s.Gypsum Structural India Pvt.Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 444 (DELHI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3406 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 689 : 2006(1) CIVLJ 890 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Must be

signed by the complainant - Non signing of complaint by complainant is a curable defect and complainant can later on sign the complaint. (S.Samsen Papli Vs Sridevi), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (MADRAS) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 956 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1991 : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 230 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 54 SOC : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 139 : 2006(38) ALLINDCAS 578 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 223 JS : 2006(3) B ANKCLR 514 : 2006(4) BANKCAS 590 : 2006 BANKJ 60 : 2005(5) CTC 765 : 2006(1) CRIMES 568 : 2006(2) ICC 441 : 2006 MADLJ (CRI) 118 : 2006(1) RECCRIR 514 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed by its officials, the company is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liable for prosecution despite non prosecution of the Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the company or incharge of its affairs. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque theory - Goods supplied to accused - All the transactions shown in the account books maintained by complainant - It is thus established that cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt - Contention that blank cheques were issued in good faith not tenable. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice contemplated to be given is one that is given after the dishonour of the cheque and not before that. (Surana Traders, rep. by its Partner & Anr. Vs T.T.K. Taxtex Limited.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (MADRAS) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 532 (MADRAS) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post at correct address - Received back with postal endorsement `Receiver could not be found despite several visits' - Accused cannot be discharged on the ground that there is no valid notice as contemplated by provision of S.138(b) of the Act as it is only at the trial that complainant can prove that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement. (Abhinav Chaturvedi Vs M/s Mangalik Chemicals), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 926 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 4561 : 2005 ALL LJ 3284 : 2006(2) AIR KAR HCR 224 (NOC) : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 418 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 3374 : 2006(1) BAN CAS 112 #3: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque drawn in favour of `Self' - Cheque not endorsed in favour of complainant - Held, complainant is neither a payee nor a holder in due course - Dishonour of self drawn cheque does not amount to penal offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Dr.Jiten Barkakoti Vs Subrata Patangia & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (GAUHATI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 744 (GAUHATI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3598 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 729 : 2006(37) ALL IND CAS 636 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 859 : 2006(1) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(2) GAU LT 558 : 2006(1) KLT 674 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Starts to run from the day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice expires - In the instant case notice received on 6.5.2000 and complaint filed on 21.6.2000 - Held, complaint is within time. (Valishetty Manohar (Complainant) Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 867 (A.P.) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant failed to take steps u/ss 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. - Accused cannot be acquitted - However, complaint can be dismissed u/s 204 Cr.P.C. (V.Suresh Kumar Vs V.C.Raveendran & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1017 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4756 : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 222 (NOC) : 2006(10 ABR 193 (NOC) : 2006(10 ALL CRI LR 741 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 467 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 262 : 2006(1) KLJ 206 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 556

#6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Absence of complainant - Held, mere absence of complainant by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused. (V.Suresh Kumar Vs V.C.Raveendran & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1017 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4756 : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 222 (NOC) : 2006(10 ABR 193 (NOC) : 2006(10 ALL CRI LR 741 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 467 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 262 : 2006(1) KLJ 206 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 556 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Chairman - Summoning order against Chairman quashed as Chairman of a Company under Companies Act is not responsible for day to day business of the company nor it can be inferred as a person consented or connived in commission of offence merely because he is Chairman of the Company. (H.B.Chaturvedi Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1006 (DELHI) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Payment stopped on account of absence of any pre-existing debt or liability - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground and the question of fact has to be decided in defence. (M/s Woods & Ors. Vs State & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 642 (DELHI) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Case pending in Court within jurisdiction of another High Court - Non bailable warrants issued as accused failed to appear inspite of service of summons - Court within whose jurisdiction accused resides can grant transit bail - Transit bail allowed. (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (RAJASTHAN) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President of society issued cheque, on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the society - Cheque drawn from personal account of President of society - Held, Society or its Secretary not liable for offence u/s 138 of the Act on dishonour of such a cheque. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President issued cheque from his personal account to discharge a debt or liability of society - Cheque dishonoured - Society or its Secretary cannot be proceeded against, unless it is established that the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the society on an account maintained by the society itself. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Reduction - Petitioner has already undergone the sentence - Request for reducing the amount of compensation not opposed by complainant - Amount of compensation reduced from Rs.50, 000/- to Rs.40, 000/-. (Jitesh Kumawat Vs Naresh & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005 CRI LJ 3419 : 2005(4) ALL CRI R 714 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 480 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 887 : 2005 CRI LR (RAJ.) 467 : 2005(3) RAJ CRI C 1470 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent at correct address - Received back with postal endorsement 'Addressee not available' - Does not amount to service of notice unless it is proved that such endorsement was managed by the addressee. (Yadlapalli Satyan Vs K.Seetharamanjaneyulu & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 24 (A.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 360 (A.P.) : 2005(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 473 : 2005 CRI LJ 2489 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 55 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.) AP 481 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 576 : 2005(125) COM CAS 623 : 2005(3) ICC 442 : 2005(2) RCR(CRI.) 762 #14: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Received back with postal endorsement 'Not found, informed' - It means addressee intentionally avoided to accept the registered cover - There is no legal defect in the service of notice. (Dayawanti Vs Shubh Lata), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (P&H) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 176

#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Limitation is 30 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank - Oral information received from bank is not sufficient Period of 30 days starts to run from the date of receipt of written communication from the bank. (V.Kishore Vs S.Ajay Kumar & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (A.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 530 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ 2383 : 2005(1) ALD(CRI.) 459 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 72 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.) 425 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 138 : 2005(127) COM CAS 452 : 2005(3) EAST CRI C 286 : 2005(3) ICC 531 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Power of attorney holder - Complaint, on dishonour of cheque, can be filed through power of attorney holder - Examination of attorney as witness in the capacity of complainant is not permissible - Power of attorney holder can appear as a witness in his own capacity - If the power of attorney holder has appeared as a witness, at the stage of taking cognizance, his testimony can be considered for the purposes of registration of the complaint/issuance of process u/s 204 Cr.P.C. but for further proceeding, examination of the complainant is a must. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.) #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Non fulfilment of conditions of contract by complainant - Contents of accusation read over to accused - Case fixed for evidence - No question of stopping the proceedings arises - Application for quashing of complaint rightly dismissed by Court below. (Suresh Kumar Vs Rituraj Pipes & Plastic Pvt.Ltd.), 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 855 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (RAJASTHAN) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Common notice - There is nothing wrong in common notice being jointly addressed to all the persons responsible for the offence. (Srikant Somani & Ors. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - No form of notice is prescribed in the Act - Form in which notice is to be issued is immaterial. (Srikant Somani & Ors. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is committed by the person who issues the cheque and not the person on whose behalf cheque is issued unless, however, the person on whose behalf the cheque is issued is a company or a partnership firm. (Srikant Somani & Ors. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Joint account - Person who draws the cheque is liable for the offence u/s 138 of the Act - Vicarious liability is available only in respect of offence committed by a company. (Srikant Somani & Ors. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - In computing period of limitation the day on which cause of action arises has to be excluded. (Srikant Somani & Ors. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant during pendency of appeal against acquittal - Brother of complainant allowed to pursue appeal. (Umesh Kanjibhai Raja Vs Nitin Rasiklal Parikh & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (BOMBAY) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post at correct address - Received back `unclaimed' - Evidence of Postman that he gave intimation to addressee but inspite of intimation addressee did not receive the notice - Accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut presumption available u/s 114 Evidence Act - Held, it is service of notice - Conviction upheld. (P.K.Thankamma Vs Sundaresan T.S.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 145, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavits - For the purpose of issuing process, evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit

and can be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding - Court on application of prosecution or accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.) #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Refusal' - It is sufficient service of notice - 15 days time to make payment starts from the date of endorsement of `Refusal' - If payment is not made within 15 days of endorsement of `Refusal' there remains one month's time for the payee to file the complaint. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount paid for securing a job - Failure to secure job - Cheque issued towards the amount obtained - Held, amount covered by cheque is legally enforceable and not opposed to public policy unlike a bribe paid. (Francis Mathew Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 61 (KERALA) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file complaint on account of dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - All transactions in relation to dishonour of cheque undertaken by power of attorney holder in total exclusion of the payee or holder in due course In such an eventuality, power of Attorney holder, in addition to his capacity to file complaint, alone has to be the witness in place of the complainant apart from other witnesses if involved in the transaction. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #5: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Goods supplied at Delhi - Post dated cheque issued at Delhi - Complainant company located in Gujarat but having bank account at Delhi also - Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured - Notice issued by complainant company and received by accused at Delhi - Complaint filed in Gujarat state - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Sick company - Winding up petition pending - Held, when complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act was filed, no decision was taken by Board for winding up the company - Pendency of proceedings for winding up does not affect prosecution. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Business transaction taking place at a number of places - Complainant can file complaint in any of the Courts where transactions took place - Choice is of the complainant. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Components of the offence of dishonour of cheque, punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act are: (1) Drawing of the cheque; (2) Presentation of the cheque to the Bank; (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank; (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for

some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Parties compromised during pendency of complaint - Another cheque given - That cheque also dishonoured - Second complaint filed - Both the complaints ordered to be clubbed and entrusted to one Court. (Anoop Bhakoo Vs Subhash Chander Gupta), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal against conviction Reduction in sentence - Accused faced agony for 12 years - Accused an old lady - Accused already deposited amount of fine - Accused already undergone 10 days of imprisonment Sentence reduced from six months to already undergone. (Dayawanti Vs Shubh Lata), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (P&H) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 176 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Refusal' - There is presumption that such endorsement was correctly made unless proved otherwise. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a collateral security Dishonour of cheque - Even collateral security becomes a debt or liability on the part of accused to perform his contract - The very issuance of cheque presumes that it was issued for discharge of liability. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time - A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the offence whereas a person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time is liable for the offence, punishable u/s 138 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Magistrate if proceeds to examine the complainant and such other evidence as the complainant may produce then it should be held to have taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the inquiry. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT

638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Company - Managing Director issued cheque on behalf of Company - Issuance of process against Managing Director challenged on the ground that liability not being the personal liability of Managing Director, he could not be prosecuted and that process is erroneously issued against him - Held, cognizance against Managing Director is taken properly after considering the material placed before Magistrate. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Cognizance of complaint is taken when Magistrate orders recording statement of complainant and any evidence which the complainant may produce - It is not necessary that the words 'Cognizance taken' should appear in the order. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Once the Court on perusal of the complaint is satisfied that the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and there is no reason to reject the complaint at that stage, and proceeds further in the matter, it must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Post dated cheque - Bank informed that there is no amount in the account of drawer - Drawee filing FIR with police and offence u/s 420 IPC registered - Held, merely because the ingredients of an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted, it does not prevent the complainant from lodging FIR with the police for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC - Bar u/s 142(a) is applicable only for the offence u/s 138 NI Act and not for an offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. (N.P.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Post dated cheque - No amount in account when cheque presented - FIR u/s 420 IPC lodged - Held, there is no bar to prosecute a person for an offence of cheating - Proceedings cannot be quashed. (N.P.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA)

#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant is entitled to file both private complaint for bouncing of cheque as well as civil suit for recovery of the amount due by the accused. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director and Joint Managing Director - By virtue of the office they hold, they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured - Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 145, 138-- - Recording statement of complainant Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S.145 in the NI Act - Affidavit of complainant can be filed - However, it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the

complainant if he considers it necessary. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #1: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice dated 9.7.1990 sent on 11.7.1990 - Even if it is taken that it was served on 12.7.1990 then date 12.7.1990 is to be excluded and the accused was required to make the payment upto 27.7.1990 - Cause of action accrues on 28.7.1990 - Date 28.7.1990 is to be excluded for counting period of one month - Complaint filed on 27.8.1990 is well within time. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Joint petition of compromise filed by parties whereby parties settled their dispute and grievances - Parties permitted to compound the offence - Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside in view of compromise and accused acquitted of the charge. (Sailesh Shyam Parsekar Vs Baban alias Vishwanath S.Godge & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 587 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 513 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4878 (S.C.) : 2005 AIRSCW 3358 : 2005(2) ALLCJ 1093 : 2005(53) ALLCRIC 306 : 2005(3) ALLCRILR 891 : 2005(4) ALLMR 847 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 702 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 702 : 2005(3) CURCRR 1 : 2005(3) ICC 811 : 2005(3) KCCR 1966 : 2005(2) ORISSA LR 430 : 2005(4) SCC 162 : 2005(5) SLT 198.1 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1321 : 2005(2) UJ (SC) 1067 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued to lawyer towards professional fee for conducting case - Cheque dishonoured - Liability is legally enforceable. (Xavierkutty Vs Sunnymon), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 772 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 741 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1742 : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 231 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 593 NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 743 : 2006(37) ALLINDCS 439 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 103 : 2006 BANKJ 764 : 2006(132) COMCAS 399 : 2006(1) CRIMES 857 : 2006(1) CURCRIR 176 : ILR (KER) 2005(4) KER 379 : 2005(3) KERLJ 410 : 2005(4) KERLT 432 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1158 : 2006(1) RECCRIR 260 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made after issuance of cheque Cheque dishonoured - Notice of demand issued pointing out all the details of the liability and the balance amount claimed - Question as to whether demand notice is illegal - Held No - Notice is perfectly legal - If inspite of part payment made if the demand had been made of the entire amount of cheque then it would obviously be improper and impermissible. (Ramnarayan Vs Proprietor, Daulat Enterprises & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 789 (BOMBAY) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 729 (BOMBAY) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Is required to be served on the drawer and not on the person who has signed the cheque on behalf of the drawer - In case of a company notice is required to be served on the company who is the drawer of the cheque and not on the signatories/Directors of the company who are incharge and responsible officer of the company as they face indictment u/s 141 of the Company - A person facing indictment under section 141 of the Act is not entitled to notice. (Target Overseas Exports (P) Ltd. Vs Iqbal), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 490 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1931 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 759 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 810 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 152 : 2005 BANK J 941 : 2005(127) COM CAS 264 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 435 : 2005(3) EAST CRI C 65 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 807 : 2005(1) KLJ 679 : 2005(2) KLT 45 : 2005(2) RCR(CRI.) 773 : 2005(2) BANKMANN 42 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque Complaint against Company, its directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not served - Case split up Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques - Prosecution of company is not sine qua non for prosecution of other persons - If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons cannot on that score escape from penal liability. (K.Chandrasekhar & Anr. Vs Mac Charles India Limited, Bangalore), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 434 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1120 : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 298 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 149 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 867 : 2005(3) ALL MR 15 : 2005(3) BANK CLR 79 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 533 : 2005 BANK J 580 : 2005(2) CIV LJ 861 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 144 : 2005(2) KANT LJ 124 #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cannot be

referred to police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. (S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 704 #8: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Police is not empowered to investigate into a complaint involving an offence under Section 138 of the Act. (S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 704 #9: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insufficient funds - Offence is covered u/s 138 NI Act - Provision of Section 420 IPC is not attracted unless mala fide intention of the person issuing the cheque is established - Dishonest intention and misrepresentation are to be specifically indicated to attract the provisions of Section 406 or 420 IPC and in absence of specific allegations offence is covered only u/s 138 of NI Act. (S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 704 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent without signatures of Advocate on it - Notice received by drawer - Held, there is sufficient compliance with the provision and all other contentions to the contrary cannot be accepted at all. (Janardhanan Vs Jayachandran), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 165 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (KERALA) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - Notice - Proof of sending notice at the last known address is sufficient compliance with the provision of S.138 of the Act - Wife of accused received notice - It is not necessary to examine postman or wife of accused to prove that wife of accused had been duly authorised by accused to receive notice. (Sheela Vs Gopalakrishnan), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 551 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3274 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 592 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.) KER. 398 : 2005(3) CIV J 767 : 2006(129) COM CAS 93 : 2005(3) CRIMES 342 (KER.) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 268 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 533 : 2004(2) ICC 834 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Filed by Managing Director through authorised officer - Managing Director under the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association authorised to file a complaint or suit Signing of complaint by Managing Director and not by authorised officer is not fatal to the case of the complainant. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - It can be described as M/s ABC through its proprietor (Name of proprietor) or proprietor (name of proprietor) of firm M/s ABC etc. - It makes no difference - It does not cause any prejudice to the accused. (Maan Agro Centre Vs Eid Parry (India) Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 254 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Drawer sought some time to make the payment - On request of drawer cheque again presented Cheque again dishonoured - Notice issued and on failure to make the payment complaint filed Cause of action accrues only once - Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time is not maintainable. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of specific pleading in complaint as to service of notice - Notice had in fact been sent and this fact has come in preliminary evidence - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548

: 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 9 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 12 (2) - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - In computing the period of limitation in any suit etc. the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal etc. - Same principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Rules of limitation Act and General clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque returned by bank with endorsement 'account closed' - It amounts to returning of cheque unpaid - Accused held guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Jaspal Singh Bedi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 1061 : 2005(1) ALL CRI LR 173 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 273 : 2005(1) CHAND CRI C 126 : 2005(1) ICC 525 : 2005(2) KLJ 340 (P&H) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person incharge and responsible to the company - Quashing of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole not disclosing commission of an offence or that some of the accused are lawyers and/or other professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of business of the company - Held, the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties and whether allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for adjudication at the trial. (S.V.Muzumdar & Ors. Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW 2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL IND CAS 51 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005 BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125) COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005 CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC 444 : ILR(KANT.) ) 2005 SC 2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ 271 : 2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4) SCJ 503 : 2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1020 : #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not signed by complainant but signed by counsel - There is no requirement of law that complaint must be signed and presented by the complainant himself - Pleader in whose favour Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case and to conduct, prosecute or defend the same. (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.) #20: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - Cognizance taken - Plea of accused that he did not receive notice - Court rejected recall petition - On request of complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant pleaded that on verification he ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice Presumption of service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and not to the opposite party and moreover accused himself has stated that he did not receive the notice which was conceded to by the complainant - Held, since no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is maintainable. (A.Gangadhar Vs K.Prasad), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed within one month of service of notice, in case of non payment - One month for filing complaint is to be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389

#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity but it will not give fresh cause of action every time - Cause of action accrues only when notice is given and drawer fails to make the payment - Cause of action arises only once. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Has to be given within 15 days of receipt of information from bank - If no notice is given within 15 days, no cause of action arises to file complaint. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Amendment of complaint Complaint filed against proprietorship concern through its proprietor but name of its proprietor not mentioned - Name of proprietor sought to be inserted by way of amendment - Amendment allowed. (Maan Agro Centre Vs Eid Parry (India) Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 254 (BOMBAY) #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Payment not made - Complaint not filed - Cheque presented for the second time - Cheque again dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint filed on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time - Complaint is not maintainable even though complaint is within limitation from the first accrual of cause of action, as the same is not pleaded and complaint is filed pleading accrual of cause of action for the second time. (M/s Delhi Cloth Store Vs M/s Ahuja Traders), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (P&H) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Body of cheque - Need not to be written by the signatory to the cheque - A cheque can be filled up by anybody if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned therein. (P.S.A.Thamotharan Vs Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 671 (MADRAS) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back as addressee left the place - Cheque presented again - Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time - Complaint is maintainable - When notice issued at the first instance there was no `giving of notice' and `receipt' of the same and there was no accrual of cause of action. (Bhadran Vs Sunil Kumar), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 552 (KERALA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 189 (KERALA) #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Fact of service of notice mentioned in complaint but not specifically mentioned in statement - Statement not to be read in isolation from the complaint - A conjoin reading of complaint and statement clearly reveal the essential ingredients of the provision. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #4: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Recording of statement of complainant is not dispensed with by incorporation of Sections 145 and 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Name, date and amount alleged to be put by the complainant and complainant denied this suggestion - Court directing for comparison of handwriting of complainant with the disputed handwriting on the cheque - Held, Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity. (Jai Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 829 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 690 (RAJASTHAN) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Name, date and amount alleged to be put by complainant and complainant denied this suggestion - Accused moved an application for comparison of his handwriting with the disputed handwriting on the cheque - Court instead ordering comparison of handwriting of complainant with the disputed handwriting on cheque -

Held, Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity. (Jai Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 829 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 690 (RAJASTHAN) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Six cheques - Joint trial - If cheques were issued as part of the same transaction then all the cases can be jointly tried. (Mohammed Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 09 (KERALA) : 2004(3) KLT 330 : 2005 MLJ (CRI.) 484 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Receipt of information' - Relevant date is the date of receipt of intimation and not the date of letter of intimation. (Amina Vs Baby), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence Proceedings before Magistrate u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is an inquiry u/s 2(g) of the Code. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence Statement of a complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is evidence - Any statement which Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, whether such statement be tested by a cross examination or not, will certainly be evidence for the purpose of S.3 of Evidence Act. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 - Facts to be proved are: (a) that the cheque was drawn for payment of an amount of money for discharge of a debt/liability and the cheque was dishonoured; (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period; (c) that the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque reaching drawers bank beyond six months from its date - Acquittal is justified. (Lalu Vs Kalam), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 538 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 715 (KERALA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147 of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque given as security - Cheque bounced Comes within fold of S.138 of N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - When given towards liability or even as security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if cheque is filled up and presented to bank, person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid liability under section 138 of N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2)

ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a guarantee - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 is not made out - Acquittal upheld. (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs P.V.Perumal), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (MADRAS) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Loan taken from finance company - Promissory notes for various amounts executed - There was no reason to issue cheque at the same time This probabilises that cheque was issued only as a guarantee for the amount payable by the accused. (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs P.V.Perumal), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (MADRAS) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Period of one month for filing complaint has to be reckoned from the date immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires. (Krishnankutty Nair Vs Ashokan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 678 (KERALA) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by Registered post at correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement 'house locked' - Complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that there is no proper service of notice - Notice whether has been served has to be decided during trial - Burden is on complainant to show that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement made and what is the effect of it has to be considered during trial. (V.Raja Kumari Vs P.Subbarama Naidu), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 354 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 308 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 127 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 109 : 2004 AIRSCW 6344 : 2004(8) ACE 176 : 2005(1) ALD (CRL) 119 : 2004(3) ALLCRIC 3070 : 2005(1) ALLCRILR 74 : 2004(24) ALLINDCAS 69 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 269 : 2004(2) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 447 : 2005(1) BLJ 479 : 2005(1) BANKCLR 11 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 1 : 2005 BANKJ 1 : 2005(1) BOMCR(CRI) 730 : 2005(5) CTC 268 : 2004 CALCRILR 1161 : 2004(3) CHANDCRIC 370 : 2005(1) CIVLJ 735 : 2005(124) COMCAS 1 : 2005(2) COMLJSC 20 : 2004(4) CRIMES 277 : 2004(4) CURCRIR 211 : 2005(79) DRJ 114 : 2005(1) EASTCRIC 60 : 2005(1) ICC 403 : ILR (KANT) 2005 SC 409 : 2005(1) JLJR 143 : 2004(9) JT 431 : 2004(4) KHCACJ 378 : 2004(3) KERLT 799 : 2004(4) LRI 481 : 2005(1) MPHT 203 : 2005(1) MPLJ 432 : 2004 MADLJ(CRI) 1104 : 2005(1) MAHLJ 1087 : 2004(29) OCR 866 : 2005(1) PATLJR 235 : 2004(4) RCR 933 : 2004(8) SCC 774 : 2004(6) SLT 443 : 2004(9) SCALE 199 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 393 : 2004(8) SUPREME 4 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued when account had already been closed - Provision of S.138 will apply. (N.A.Issac Vs Jeemon P.Abraham & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 119 (S.C.) : 2004(4) REC CRI R 466 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Company - Notice served upon sister concern - It is for complainant to prove that acknowledgement issued was by some one authorised on behalf of accused company and not by any body from sister concern - PW 1 examined on behalf of company on point had no knowledge who had put initials and whether person putting seal on initial was authorised by accused company to receive notice - Notice was not addressed to any specific individual but simply to Director - Order of acquittal - No interference. (D.C.W.Home Products Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 736 (BOMBAY) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 244 (BOMBAY) #23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against husband and wife - Cheque issued by wife - No allegation in complaint that husband has been doing business alongwith his wife and that the cheques were issued in discharge of her liability Held, proceedings against husband not sustainable. (Dharmendra Kumbhat & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 768 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 206 (RAJASTHAN) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - In appeal parties compromised - Conviction and sentence set aside - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable under S.147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Alka Gupta), 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 581 (S.C.) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 176 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 795 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 3978 : 2005 CRI LJ 3853 : 2004 AIR SCW 4344 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1591 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 824 : 2004 ALL MR (CRI.) 2272 : 2004(3) BLR 289 : 2004(2) BOM CR (CRI) 2 : 2004 CAL CRI R 563 : 2004(2) CAL HN 183 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 74 : 2004(98)

CUT LR 634 : 2004(2) KLT 725 : 2004(3) PLR 3681 : 2004(3) REC CIV R 116 : 2004(4) SCC 366 : 2004(4) SLT 959 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 1084 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence - Permissible by way of affidavit - Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.I. Act, Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.200 Cr.P.C. and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.254 & 315 Dishonour of cheque - Defence witness - Summoning of - Accused himself not examined as a witness - His application to summon defence witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he should first himself be examined as a witness. (B.M.Arif Vs Boston Tea (India) Limited, Mangalore), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 628 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 375 : 2004 AIR KANT HCR 3408 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 432 : 2004(30) ALL IND CAS 309 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 33 : 2005 BANK J 985 : 2005(1) CVUR CRI R 124 : ILR(KANT.) 2004(2) KAR 2382 : 2004(3) KCCR 1455 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 439 : 2005(1) RCR(CRI.) 253 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Original cheque lost - Secondary evidence Photocopy of cheque already on record - If cheque is really lost it would be improper and incorrect to deny the complainant an opportunity to substantiate his grievance by adducing secondary evidence as permitted under S.65 of Evidence Act. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.65). (Chitaranjan Vs Jayarajan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship firm - Cheque issued by proprietor - Firm need not to be impleaded as a party - Proceedings can be launched against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity. (Babu Vs Suresh), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Request to send the cheque to handwriting expert for examination - Every such request not to be allowed - It is for the trial Court to alertly consider the acceptability of such request and ensure that the cheque is forwarded to the expert only if satisfactory reasons are available. (Francis Vs Pradeep), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 69 : 2004 CRI LJ 3827 : 2004(2) DCR 363 : 2005(1) CRIMES 265 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 441 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.) KER. 283 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 320 : 2004(4) CUR CRI R 216 : 2004(2) KLJ 329 : 2004(2) KLT 1080 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - Presentation of cheque to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn - Means cheque to be presented to the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 : 2004(23) ALL IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 738 : 2005(1) CUR CRI R 35 : 2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - 'Within thirty days' - Means information received from the bank where cheque is presented for collection and not from information sent by drawer's bank to payee's bank. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 : 2004(23) ALL IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 738 : 2005(1) CUR CRI R 35 : 2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not issued within 15 days of receipt of notice from bank regarding dishonour of cheque - Notice is not valid. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Hutagekar), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 865 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - One month - Period of one month cannot be read/taken as period of 30 days. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Hutagekar), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 :

2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 865 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint barred by limitation - Magistrate cannot take cognizance of same by treating complaint as one under Indian Penal Code regarding offence of heating where complaint does not make out case of offence under Indian Penal Code. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Hutagekar), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 865 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post and also through certificate of posting - Notice sent as per registered post received back with postal endorsement 'addressee left' - No evidence led that notice sent under certificate of posting was in fact served on drawer of cheque - No proper service of notice - Complaint therefore not maintainable. (K.Annaji Rao Vs N.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (A.P.) : 2004 CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 : 2005(1) BANK CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented twice and dishonoured Complaint filed on the basis of second dishonoured - Fact of dishonour of cheque when presented first not mentioned in complaint - Complaint cannot be said to be not maintainable for the reason that no legal action was initiated when cheque was dishonoured for the first time. (K.Annaji Rao Vs N.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (A.P.) : 2004 CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 : 2005(1) BANK CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Security - Loan taken - Agreement executed to repay loan within six months and cheque issued as security to be encashed in case of failure to pay loan amount - Loan not paid - Cheque which had been issued as security transforms itself into a cheque representing liability in terms of agreement - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership - Partners - Absence of averments in complaint that partners are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm - Order of Magistrate discharging the appellants restored. (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S.C.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935 : 2004(50) ALL CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 : 2004(2) ALT (CRI.) 237 S.C. : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM. CR (CRI.) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ 215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717 : 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61) COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22) IND LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1) MPHT 97 : 2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 : 2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3) REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 : 2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD 22 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Another person' refers to payee, holder, holder in due course and endorsee - These words carry same meaning as they are understood in civil jurisprudence - Consideration inter se between drawee and holder in due course is not necessary to bind drawer. (G.P.R.Housing Private Limited, Bangalore & Anr. Vs K.Venugopala Krishna), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Joint Account Holder - Account could be operated by either of them - Cheque issued by one to discharge his liability - Account holder who has not drawn the cheque is not liable u/s 138 of the Act. (Devi Vs Haridas), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 649 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 285 (KERALA) : 2004(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 611 : I(2005) BANKING CASES 273 : 2004 CRI LJ 4710 : 2004(24) ALL IND CAS 909 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 16 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.) KER 501 : ILT(KER) 2004(3) KER. 636 : 2004(3) KLJ 575 : 2004(3) KLT 355 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 641

#16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Death during pendency of proceedings - Not necessary that legal heirs or legal representatives only can continue the proceedings - A fit and proper person can be permitted to prosecute the petition. (Sebastian Vs State of Kerala), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2004(1) KLT 457 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Death during pendency of proceedings - Sister - Can be allowed to continue the proceedings when legal heirs do not chose to come on record to prosecute the petition. (Sebastian Vs State of Kerala), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2004(1) KLT 457 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Unregistered - Complaint by partner of an unregistered firm is maintainable as S.69 Partnership Act is not applicable to criminal proceedings. (Bhavani Agencies, Bangalore Vs G.C.Colour Lab, Bangalore & Anr.), 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 219 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 55 (KARNATAKA) #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Payment already made - Plea of - Same to be proved at the trial - Not a ground for quashing proceedings. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Slight variation between amount of cheque amount and that mentioned in notice - Does not invalidate notice - Notice is to be construed, not with a view to find fault with it, but is to be construed with view to give effect to it. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Accrues on expiry of 15 days 15 Days period starts to run on the day notice is received - Cause of action accrues on the following day on which period of 15 days expires. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Guarantee' - Cheque for Rs.22, 000/- issued against loan of Rs.20, 000/- for the due discharge of the liability (including interest) - Cheque dishonoured - It cannot be said that cheque is not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. (Venugopalan Vs Moosa), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 139 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 390 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 2220 : 2004(2) DCR 139 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 345 : 2004(2) BANK CAS 566 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 307 : ILR(KER.) 2004(3) KER 557 : 2004(1) KLJ 590 : 2004(1) KLT 1079 : 2004(53) SEBI&CL KER 199 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque without consideration - Burden to prove that there subsists no debt or liability is on accused. (G.P.R.Housing Private Limited, Bangalore & Anr. Vs K.Venugopala Krishna), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice issued to payee not to present cheque Cannot prevent payee from presenting cheque to his Bank for collection of amount and from instituting criminal proceedings on dishonour of cheque. (G.P.R.Housing Private Limited, Bangalore & Anr. Vs K.Venugopala Krishna), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Additional evidence at appellate stage - When despite grant of time for defence evidence, the accused fails to avail of the opportunity of leading defence evidence, he cannot complain that he was not given reasonable or proper opportunity - Proper and reasonable opportunity means an opportunity fairly appropriate under the circumstances of the trial and not denying the accused to put forth, his case or to lead defence evidence - Petitioner failed to adduced defence evidence despite several opportunities Application rejected. (A.Hasan Bava Vs P.V.Upadhya), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (KARNATAKA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction in two separate cases - Sentences to run concurrently. (Satpal Chaudhary Vs Kuldip Mahajan & Anr.), 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 666 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (P&H) #2: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal against - Dismissal in absence of counsel for appellant - Held, criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution simplicitor without examining the merits thereof. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received by wife of the petitioner Notice is duly served upon petitioner. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice not given to petitioner who was one of the directors of the company - He had not either drawn or signed the cheque - He was merely a non-executive Director of the Company - He had resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque - It was accused No.2 who was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Chaitan M.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque issued against loan taken for motor vehicle on hire purchase basis - Default in repayment of loan - Possession of vehicle taken by owner - Hire purchase agreement is thus terminated - Dishonour of cheque - Held, when cheque is presented and dishonoured after termination of hire purchase agreement then no offence is made out u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sudha Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 472 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3418 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 165 : 2004(21) ALL INC CAS 336 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 71 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 437 : 2004(3) ICC 526 : ILT(KER.) 2004(3) KERL 312 : 2004(3) KHC ACJ 289 : 2004(2) KLT 746 : 2004(2) KLJ 138 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Cheque without actual amount payable is not a cheque - Amount payable can be filled up subsequently with the consent of the person who issued the cheque - If amount is filled up subsequently without consent of the person who issued the cheque then presumption u/s 139 stands rebutted - A blank cheque cannot be enforced even though it is issued for legal liability. (Avon Organics Ltd. Vs Poineer Products Limited & Ors.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.P.) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 335 (A.P.) : 2004(1) CRIMES 567 : 2004(1) ALT (CRL.) 90 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued after closure of account - Cheque dishonoured - Such a cheque falls within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Salim Vs Thomas), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 439 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3096 : 2004(2) ALL CRI LR 791 : 2004(17) ALL IND CAS 461 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 41 : 2004(4) ICC 618 : ILR(KER.) 2004(3) KER. 384 : 2004(1) KLJ 727 : 2004(1) KLT 816 : 2004(52) SEBI & CL KER. 293 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made - Part payment remained unpaid even after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice - Accused has committed the offence u/s 138 NI Act. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Payments made before the presentation of cheque and before receipt of notice - Nothing precludes a Court from taking into account prior payments made before the presentation of the cheque or before the receipt of notice in

deciding whether the amount due under the cheque has been paid. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Dishonour of cheque Prosecution of a partner - Incharge and responsible - Not required to be specifically stated in the complaint - Substance of complaint must show that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of firm. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd.), 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (P&H) #12: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of service - Complaint alleged to be premature - Date of service of notice not indicated on postal acknowledgment - It is the function of the person receiving the notice to place the date of receipt of notice. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Witnesses not turning up despite service of summons - Evidence closed - Held, it is duty of Court to compel appearance of witnesses - Order of closer of evidence is improper - Trial Court directed to compel appearance of witnesses. (Neelam Sharma Vs M/s.Sri Gangadas Irrigation System), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - `Receipt of information' - Means receipt of information from bank in writing - Oral information is not sufficient. (Immanuel Vs Rajappan), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 652 (KERALA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Unregistered firm can prosecute criminal complaint regarding dishonour of cheque - S.69(2) Partnership Act is not applicable as it bars filing of a civil suit and not a criminal complaint. (Beacon Industries, Banglore Vs Anupam Ghosh), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 348 (KARNATAKA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Period of 30 days expiring on a holiday - Complaint filed on next day is valid. (Chandradasan Vs George), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 774 (KERALA) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - It is not necessary to implead the proprietary concern as a party when it is a sole proprietary concern. (Shivaraj Vs Gurudeva), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 714 (KARNATAKA) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision - Applicability - When it is a legally enforceable debt or liability then S.138 applies and relationship of parties is not at all a factor germane to the proceeding. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision - Applicability - It is legally perverse to

say that provision is applicable only in case of transaction involving Mercantile relationship. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Stop payment' - Merely because the drawer issued notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment it will not preclude an action under S.138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of the cheque in due course. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Amendment Cheque number and date of information received from bank sought to be amended - Held, trial Court has inherent power to allow to rectify typographical mistakes to do justice between the parties - Criminal Courts have an auxiliary power subject to restrictions which justice, equity, good conscience and legal provisions demand provided it will not unnecessarily prejudice somebody else - Amendment allowed. (Bhim Singh Vs Kan Singh), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) DCR 158 (RAJ.) : 2004 CRI LJ 4306 (RAJ.) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Holder in due course'- Bank purchasing cheque from payee - Payee however not indorsed the cheque in favour of Bank - Bank is neither the payee nor holder in due course - S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not applicable when notice issued by Bank is neither by the payee nor by holder in due course. (Punjab National Bank Vs Himgiri Traders & Anr.), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 380 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Holder in due course' - Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque payable to bear or the payee or indorsee thereof. (Punjab National Bank Vs Himgiri Traders & Anr.), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 380 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Amount and payee's name not written by drawer but by somebody else or by payee - By itself not a ground to contend that cheque is not validly issued or that the cheque was not executed at all. (Lillykutty Vs Lawrance), 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 601 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 38 (KERALA) : 2003(3) KLT 721 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - No allegation in complaint that cheques were issued with consent or knowledge of Directors - No allegation that Directors were responsible for control of day to day business of company or had active role in issuing cheques - Order of cognizance against Directors quashed. (Madanlal & Ors. Vs Bhanwarlal), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Once issued, though unserved, complainant forfeits his right to present the cheque again - If notice issued within time and the same is not served for any reason, complainant is not bared to issue another notice even though it exceeds the period of fifteen days - Presentation of cheque again on the ground that notice issued originally was returned unserved, instead of taking recourse to issue notice a second time, not legal and does not save the period of limitation. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s.K.M.Enterprises & Anr.), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.P.) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sister concerns - Cheque issued to discharge the liability of company `A' drawn on account of company `B' which is a sister concern of company `A' - Held, company `A' cannot escape the liable on the premise that it is not the maker or drawer of the cheque. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s.K.M.Enterprises & Anr.), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.P.) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Affidavits and documents in support of complaint - Magistrate has power to accept affidavit of the complainant and witnesses, if any and to proceed further without recording statements under S.200 Cr.P.C. (Pankaj Kapoor Vs State & Ors.), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Time barred debt - Cheque issued - When a person issues a cheque he acknowledges his liability to pay - In event of dishonour of cheque he is not entitled to claim that the debt had become barred by limitation and that the liability was not thus enforceable. (Ramakrishnan Vs Parthasaradhy), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 228 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 145 (KERALA) : 2003(3) ICC 662 : 2003(3) REC CRI R 711 : 2003(2) KLT 613 #6: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent deliberately at wrong address Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days of issuance of notice - Order of taking cognizance quashed. (Rama Chandra Panigrahi Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (ORISSA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 314 (ORISSA) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Stop payment before the due date of payment - Held, S.138 of the Act is attracted. (Goaplast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza & Anr.), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summons - Service - Case dismissed for non payment of registered postal charges - There is no procedure for issuance of process to an accused by post - If service of summons is not fruitful then Court can issue bailable or nonbailable warrant of arrest - Order as to payment of postal charges being illegal as such consequent dismissal for not taking steps is also not proper in the eye of law. (M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Ltd. Vs M/s Shivashakti Poultry Farm), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (KARNATAKA) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 270 (KANT.) : 2002 CRI LJ 4446 (KANT.) : 2003(1) CUR CRI R 180 : 2002(3) BANK CAS 403 : 2002 AIR KANT HCR 2682 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint u/s 138 as well as civil suit for recovery - Two proceedings are independent of each other - If Criminal Court levies fine on accused and orders payment of compensation out of amount of fine, then Civil Court can take that fact into account in moulding its award for compensation if any, while decreeing suit subsequently - When decree passed by Civil Court is only money decree not involving award of compensation question of adjusting compensation awarded by Criminal Court against such decree does not arise - Where Civil Court which decreed suit had not made adjustment of compensation awarded by Criminal Court, Court executing decree has no jurisdiction to go behind decree and make adjustment. (Smt.Gayathri Vs Smt.Clement Mary), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT. 134 : 2003 AIR KANT. HCR 144 : 2003(2) ALD (CRL.) 175 : 2003(2) ALL CRI LR 858 : 2003(4) ALL IND CAS 88 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 760 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 252 : 2003(2) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 630 : 2003(2) CIV LJ 611 : 2003(114) COM CAS 260 : 2003(2) KANT. LJ 120 : 2003(2) REC CRI R 739 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Prosecution proceedings not to be quashed at initial stage if uncontroverted allegations in complaint and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage of enquiry prima facie bring out the case within the ambit of S.138 of the Act. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (P&H) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 237 (P&H)

#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sleeping partner - Proceedings not to be quashed against a partner on ground that he was a sleeping partner - Disputed question of fact be decided during trial. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (P&H) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 237 (P&H) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Death of payee within two days Complaint by L.R's - Not maintainable - Drawer could not comply with the notice to make payment within 15 days - The liability to search and find out the legal heirs to pay the amount covered by the cheque to them within the period of 15 days prescribed is not obviously be read into a penal provision like S.138 N.I. Act. (Syamala Vs Gopakumar), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 06 (KERALA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Directors - Mere stating that Directors were responsible to the company for its conduct is not sufficient - There must be averment in the complaint about the specific and active role about the commission of offence. (Madanlal & Ors. Vs Bhanwarlal), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque in the name of firm - Complaint by proprietor of the firm - No relief can be granted if it is not established that business concern mentioned as payee of the cheque is owned by the complainant. (Dassan Vs Ranimol), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued Respondent sought some more time - Failure to make payment as promised - Cheque against presented, again dishonoured and a fresh notice issued and complaint filed on failure to make payment - Cause of action to file complaint arose on failure to make payment on issuance of first notice and the same cannot be stopped to run by a promise to make payment - Complaint is barred by limitation. (N.G.Somashekar Vs S.V.Shivaprasad), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 456 (KARNATAKA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Returned as unclaimed - Presumption of service - Not available if notice is not addressed to correct address. (Suresh Kumar Vs Sasi), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 531 (KERALA) : 2003(2) KLT 367 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque ` 'Refer to drawer' - Means dishonour is on ground of insufficiency of funds. (Rajan Vs Sharafudheen), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (KERALA) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 415 (KERALA) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued against loan - However blank cheque alleged to be issued to third person and that the same is misused by the drawer Person through whom drawer came into contact with drawee and in whose presence money was advanced not examined - Person to whom blank cheque issued not examined though was seen in the Court premises - Different ink used in body and signature of cheque - Accused acquitted. (C.Antony Vs K.G.Raghavan Nair), 2002(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 481 (S.C.) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 90 (S.C.) : 2003 CRI.L.J. 411 : 2002 AIR SCW 4617 : 2002(2) ALD (CRL.) 880 : 2003(1) ALL CJ 580 : 2003(1) ALL IND CAS 965: 2003(1) AND LT (CRI.)SC218 : 2003(1) AND WR 784 : 2003(1) BLJ 574 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 29 : 2003 BANK LJ 493 : 2003 CAL CRI LR 116 : 2003(1) CIVIL LJ 532 : 2002(112) COM CAS 611 : 2003(1) CRIMES 76 : 2003(1) EAST CRI C 22 :2003(1) JLJR 277 : 2003(24) OCR 503 : 2003(1) ORISSA LR 183 : 2003(1) PAT LJR 246 : 2003(1) RAJ CRI. C 154 : 2004(2) RCR(CRL.) 750 : 2003(1) SCC 1 : 2002(6) SLT 272 : 2002(1) SRJ 470 : 2002(8) SCALE 266 : 2002(7) SUPREME 598 : 2003 SCC (CRI) 161 : AIR 2003 SC 182 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Complainant

pursuing his case seriously and appearing on every hearing - When the case was not fixed for evidence of complainant, Magistrate could dispense with the appearance of complainant u/s 256 Cr.P.C. and adjourn the case. (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Mangat Rai), 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 609 (P&H) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) #21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insertion of date on an undated cheque - By itself does not amount to material alteration so as to render the cheque void. (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (RAJASTHAN) #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Execution of cheque admitted as such consideration thereunder is presumed - Holder has implied authority to put date on undated cheque and the same does not amount to material alteration - No ground to quash proceedings. (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (RAJASTHAN) #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.Three lacs - Sentence of simple imprisonment of one month - Compensation of Rs.3, 10, 000 payable under S.357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation further simple imprisonment of sixty days. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Normally in a successful prosecution u/s 138, a direction under S.357 Cr.P.C. must follow. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Amount was due to complainant by father of accused and not by accused - Cheque not issued by accused to pay his father's debt but was taken by force from him by complainant - Prosecution of accused for bouncing of cheque is not legal - Accused acquitted and his conviction and sentence set aside. (Gundepaneni Nagabushanam Vs T.Eswar Rao & Anr.), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393 (A.P.) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 651 (A.P.) #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint Condition of expiry of 15 days after notice applies to taking cognizance and not to filing of complaint which can be kept pending as premature till prescribed time. (Mahendra Agrawal Vs Gopi Ram Mahajan), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (RAJASTHAN) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 527 (RAJASTHAN) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - All the partners cannot be proceed as accused on the assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are responsible for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against as accused. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However, subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint for non prosecution - Complaint restored - Held, order of Magistrate restoring complaint is without jurisdiction. (Ram Bhaj Jain Vs M/s Brar Rice & General Mills), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 615 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 703 (P&H) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Prosecution of Chairman and Managing Director in absence of joining of Company as an accused - No infirmity in the complaint. (Ashok Chaturvedi Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT

CASES 652 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 619 (BOMBAY) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Interest warrant - Provision of S.138 apply where interest warrant is dishonoured. (Ashok Chaturvedi Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 619 (BOMBAY) #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner resigned and he was not Director either on the date when the cheques were issued or when the cause of action arose - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (S.B.Shankar Vs M/s.Amman Steel Corporation), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 76 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0253 #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Recall for further cross examination - Trial still in progress - Application allowed. (Shri Sat Deo Jain Vs M/s Investment Point), 2002(3) CIVILL COURT CASES 142 (DELHI) #9: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by partnership firm - S.69 Partnership Act is not applicable to proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Gurcharan Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 187 (ALLAHABAD) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0070 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Setting aside order - Charge framed - Complainant pursing complaint for two years Magistrate could adjourn the case and could dispense with personal attendance of complainant - Efforts of Magistrate should be to dispose of case on merits instead of dismissing it in default Held, under the circumstances Magistrate was wholly unjustified in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution. (Sant Lal Bhatia Vs City Credit and Leasing Company), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 204 (P&H) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 291 (P&H) : 2002(3) REC CRI R 250 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post and under Certificate of Posting - There is presumption of service of notice sent under certificate of posting u/s 114 of Evidence Act. (M/s C.E.I. Consultancy Vs M/s Modi World Infotech), 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 218 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (A.P.) : 2002 CRI LJ 2731 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Unsigned complaint - Defect not noticed by Magistrate and complainant was examined u/s 200 on same day and his signatures were taken on verification and process was issued - Held, non signing of complaint does not go to root of the matter and is a mere technical irregularity. (Vijay & Anr. Vs Ramchandra & Anr.), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 473 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by guarantor to discharge liability of principal debtor - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint u/s 138 is maintainable against guarantor. (I.C.D.S. Ltd Vs Beena Shabeer & Anr.), 2002(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 249 (S.C.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 411 (S.C.) : 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (S.C.) : 2002(3) KLT 218 : ILR 2003 KAR 4373 : 2003(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 9 : AIR 2002 SC 3014 : 2002 CRI LJ 3935 : 2002(4) REC CRI R 74 : 2002(4) CRIMES 75 : 2002(6) SCC 426 : 2002 SCC (CRI.) 1342 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or liability' - Whether cheque was issued as security or discharge of liability is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint - It can await maturity or be returned to the complaint for filing later and its mere presentation at an early date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed. (Mahendra Agrawal Vs Gopi Ram Mahajan), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (RAJASTHAN) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 527 (RAJASTHAN) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Return of complaint by Court having no territorial jurisdiction to be presented before proper Court - Period mentioned for representation of complaint - Period of pendency of complaint to be excluded - Period from return of complaint to representation of complaint cannot be condoned as there is no provision either in Cr.P.C. or

Limitation Act. (Rayala Sima Agro Enterprises & Ors. Vs Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 651 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (A.P.) #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence of fine Quantum - Cheque amount Rs.1.5 lacs and fine imposed Rs.15, 000/- - Fine enhanced to Rs.3 lacs out of which Rs.2.95 lacs payable to the complainant and Rs.5, 000/- to be appropriated to the State and in default accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. (Smt.Bhavani Vs D.C.Doddarangaiah & Anr.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (KARNATAKA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defects in the format of complaint - Court can grant permission to rectify the same. (M/s Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B.G.Brothers), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0496 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - Complaint can either be filed by proprietorship firm through its proprietor or by proprietor in his individual capacity. (M/s Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B.G.Brothers), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0496 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention that A-5 was not the Director of the company by the date cheques were issued - It is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court after recording evidence. (S.P.Subramaniam & Ors. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.P.) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Directors - Complaint disclosing that A-2 issued cheque on behalf of A-1 company with the consent and knowledge of the directors It cannot be held that there is no accusation against the Directors of the Company - It is for the Directors to establish during trial that they are not responsible for the day to day business of the company. (S.P.Subramaniam & Ors. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.P.) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - New check issued on taking back cheque issued earlier - This fact mentioned in notice - Complaint based on cheque issued earlier - In proof of complaint, new cheque produced - Cheque issued earlier, on which complaint based not produced - Summoning order passed only on the basis of cheque issued earlier without taking note of the fact that a different cheque was introduced into evidence - Held, complaint is not only defective but also there is total non-applicaton of mind by Magistrate - This is not a mere technical defect which can be allowed to be amended - Since cheque is the very basis of complaint and when very foundation has not been properly laid by giving correct number of cheque, complaint itself becomes not maintainable. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defects in complaint - A defect which goes to the root of the matter, cannot be allowed to amended. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Four cheques clubbed in one complaint Complaint not to be quashed - It is not such a defect which goes to the root of the matter. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sole proprietorship firm - Proprietor was the complainant company - Held, complaint can be filed by any person connected with company may be its Director or Manager or any other person so authorised. (M/s EITA India Ltd. Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 126 (DELHI) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses - Omission - Not a lacuna as there is only one witness in such cases viz. complainant or payee of cheque. (Holiyappa K.Patil alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietary concern - Complainant can be either the proprietor or any other person who is authorised specifically in regard thereto. (Y.Venkata Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba Enterprises), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A.P.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Manager - Authorisation - A person can represent the corporate even on an authorisation letter and it does not require any supporting resolution to be passed by the concern. (Y.Venkata Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba Enterprises), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A.P.) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sole proprietorship concern - Sole proprietor happened to be a company - Complaint can be filed by any person connected with the company, may be its director or manager or any other person, so authorised by the company, who can represent the company in legal proceedings. (M/s.Eita India Ltd. Vs N.C.T. of Delhi), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 187 (DELHI) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not given within 15 days of intimation of dishonour of cheque - Delay cannot be condoned either u/s 5 Limitation Act or u/s 473 Cr.P.C. Complaint quashed. (S.V.Muthye Vs State), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 204 (DELHI) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 190 (DELHI) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proceedings u/s 138 are under the Negotiable Instruments Act which is a self contained special law - Provisions of other Acts, like the Indian Partnership Act, are not attracted. (C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Complaint filed by Manager Authority - When Manager stated that he is the Manager of the partnership firm and is authorised to do so at the earliest stage the Court need not doubt his authorisation or capacity If at all the same is required to be considered, it is at the stage while trial is taking place. (C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Complaint filed by Manager - At the time of filing complaint it is not required to be disclosed that he is authorised to do so or produce any authorisation. (C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant company ceased to exist on its merger with another company - Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against drawer - Criminal liability of drawer is not obliterated by merger of companies. (Sannidhi Agencies Vs Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (KARNATAKA) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0421 #10: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Revision against conviction - Death of complainant during pendency of revision - L.R's allowed to be brought on record as financial benefit has accrued by order of conviction. (Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs Bhagat Ram), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (H.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 297 (H.P.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Plea of non service of notice - This fact can only be decided during trial of case. (Urjit Singh Vs State of Punjab), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Cheque signed by petitioner at Salem - Cheque amount was to be paid at Salem - Cheque was to be sent to Varanasi for collection purpose but the encashment had to take place at Salem - Held, cause of action wholly arose at Salem and no part of cause of action arose at Varanasi Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction to stay the complaint filed at Salem. (Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 145 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0545 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - 15 days time to make payment will start on the next date of refusal - Complaint is to be filed within one month from the expiry

of 15 days from the refusal of the notice. (Holiyappa K.Patil alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by `E' and not by `T' - Even assuming connivance between `E' and `T' cognizance cannot be taken against `T' - Offence, if any, by `T' not covered by Act. (M/s.Tata Finance Ltd. Vs J.S.Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (RAJASTHAN) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of accused during trial - Proceedings will abate - Legal heirs cannot be prosecuted. (Sham Lal, Director, G.S.Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by company dishonoured - Prosecution against company and Managing Director who signed the cheque Death of Managing Director - Another Director cannot be prosecuted in absence of an averment that the said director was also responsible for the conduct and business of the company Proceedings quashed. (Sham Lal, Director, G.S.Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence under section 138 N.I. Act is made out only if cheque is dishonoured for want of funds in the account and not for the reason that signatures differed. (Rejikumar Vs Sukumaran), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393 (KERALA) : AIR 2003 KANT HCR 75 N : 2002(3) ICC 633 : 2002(3) REC CIV R 763.2 : 2002(2) ISJ (BANKING) 0321 : 2002 CRI LJ 3255 : 2002(4) CRIMES 0289 : 2002(3) REC CRI R 213 : 2002(4) CRI LJ 3255 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint - Filed by Assistant Manager of Credit Control - Authorisation can be express or implied and the implicity has to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and the things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing. (The Waterbase Ltd. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P.) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs.4000/- - During revision accused paid the amount of cheque and fine - Accused remained in custody for 18 days - Sentence reduced to already undergone. (Sat Pal Vs State of Punjab), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (P&H) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (P&H) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cannot be dismissed on such technical ground that it does not state cause of action. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not presented personally by complainant but presented by his Advocate - Complaint, held, validly presented. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Company - Directors - Where allegations made against directors prima facie constitute offence, complaint is maintainable - It is for a particular director to show that he was not incharge of affairs of company when offence alleged was committed. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors and General Manager Petitioners alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Obligation as required u/s 141 is discharged - Complaint cannot be quashed - However, petitioners are entitled to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge during trial. (S.C.Chhabra, Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348

#24: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Purchase of vehicle - Advance paid as per cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Vehicle not sold - Does not amount to commission of an offence under S.138 of the Act as there is no debt or liability. (Joshi Topno alias Joshi Amrit Topno Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 648 (JHARKHAND) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Vicarious liability Accused opened account on behalf of Company and issued cheque - It shows that accused is prima facie responsible for the liability - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment in the complaint that accused was incharge and responsible to the company. (Urjit Singh Vs State of Punjab), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Returned with postal endorsement 'Left, not known' - It has to be taken as deemed service. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - By a person who is incharge or responsible to the Company - Whether authorisation must be on the date or a subsequent authorisation can validate the complaint? - Held, even if initially there is no authority, still the Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect - At a subsequent stage the Company can send a person who is competent to represent the Company. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Quashing - Debt or liability Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no debt or liability - At this stage Court cannot go into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there is no existing debt or liability. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or liability' - Pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must allege in the complaint that there is a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the respondents. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - An offence is made out However, an accused can prove that `stop payment' was not due to insufficiency or paucity of funds but payment was stopped because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque then offence u/s 138 is not made out. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal for default - Restoration - Complainant could not appear because he was not informed of the date by his counsel - Order of dismissal set aside - As the complainant had engaged a counsel and was pursing the complaint bona fide as such he cannot be punished for inaction or omission of Advocate - Courts are to look into the matter with justice oriented approach. (Ratanlal Gulabchand Gupta Vs Sahara Sev Gruh Udyog Bhandar), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (GUJARAT)

#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Employee of company issued cheque in his individual capacity to discharge liability of company - Held, employee of company is drawer of cheque in his individual capacity - Proceedings against company quashed. (Kitex Garments Limited Vs Ajay Koushik Prop.Karan Traders), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 51 (MADRAS) : 2001(4) REC CRI R 677 : 2002(1) KLT 17 (SN) #8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not compoundable - No such permission can even be granted by High Court by taking recourse to its inherent powers under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Prakashchandra Chaudhary Vs State of Madhya Pradesh), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 93 (M.P.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0567 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Stop payment' - Merely because the drawer of the cheque issued notice to the drawee or to the bank for stopping payment, it would not save from an action u/s 138 of the Act. (Raj Chawla Vs P.N.Kapoor), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (DELHI) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Oral intimation - Not a demand notice There has to be a written notice. (H.N.Hari Vs A.J.Mavla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0094 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' arises only when notice is issued and payment is not made - Notice given when cheque was dishonoured for the second time - Notice is valid - Oral intimation was given when cheque was dishonoured for the first time - Oral intimation is not demand notice as there has to be a written notice. (H.N.Hari Vs A.J.Mavla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0094 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - No Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed in Court at Mumbai - Part of cause of action arose in Kerala State - Held, Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending in other State. (Krishnakumar Menon Vs Neoteric Informatique Pvt.Ltd.), 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 528 (KERALA) : 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Signatures on cheque incomplete - Proceedings quashed. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui), 2002(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 476 (S.C.) : 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (S.C.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 625 (S.C.) : 2002 CRI LR 1034 : 2002(7) SCC 541 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - List of witnesses - In absence of list of witnesses summons against accused will not be issued Provision of S.204(2) is mandatory in nature commanding absolute compliance. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Notice Sufficient of service of notice - Question is to be decided on basis of evidence led during trial and not at initial stage - Proceedings cannot be quashed on ground of insufficiency of service of notice, when question is yet to be decided by trial Court. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Three notices - In response to the first notice petitioner requested to represent the cheque - Cheque presented and again dishonoured - Second notice issued - Again requested to represent the cheque - Cheque presented and again dishonoured - Third notice issued - Failure to make payment - Complaint filed - Held, if no complaint is filed on the first cause of action the payee is disentitled to create another cause of action to file a complaint for the purpose of launching a prosecution on it - Complaint not legally maintainable. (Archana Publication Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Delhi), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Police report - Cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint - Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Regular commercial transaction - Offence u/s 138 is made out and not an offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - No allegation in complaint that accused No.3 was incharge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said offence nor there is an evidence to this effect - Summoning order against such partner quashed. (Mukesh Aggarwal Vs State), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 327 (DELHI) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0574 : 2001(7) AD (DELHI) 735 : 2002(1) JCC 134 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Payment stopped - In notice reason for return of cheque mentioned `Insufficient funds' - Notice is not valid. (Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath Singla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0052 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second cheque issued as first cheque alleged to be lost - Second cheque got encashed - Thereafter first cheque presented which was returned with endorsement `Payment stopped' - Prosecution launched on basis of first cheque quashed Facts show that complainant filed the complaint with mala fide intention to harass the accused. (Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath Singla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0052 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non mention of cheque number - Not fatal when only one cheque is issued and all other particulars are furnished. (Nityanand Vs Smt.Jamuna Prakash), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0210 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Death of - Complaint does not ipso facto terminate or abate upon death of complainant - Where complainant is dead, his legal representative, agent or power-of-attorney holder can be permitted to prosecute complaint. (Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs Mrs.Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Deceased) by L.Rs.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0200 : (2003)115 COM. CAS. 770 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - A partner though not signatory to the cheque yet is liable for the offence of dishonour of cheque if he is responsible for the business of the partnership firm. (Harsukhbhai Lakshmanbhai Vs State of Gujarat), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (GUJARAT) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Power of attorney holder - Is competent to present the complaint - Question whether sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded - Question not decided. (S.Ramesh Vs Basanth Kumar Patil), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (KARNATAKA) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued after five months of receipt of information from Bank - Notice is clearly beyond the time fixed under S.138(b) of the Act Compliant and summoning order quashed. (M/s.R.D.Jindal Cotton Factory Vs M/s.Surjeet Udyog, Kotkapura), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (P&H)

#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Accountant - Specific allegation that he is also looking after the affairs of the company - Held, accountant who is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be prosecuted. (Dev Vs State of A.P.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 663 (A.P.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Filed prior to expiry of 15 days of notice period - Notice dated 13.6.1998 complaint filed on 26.6.1998 and cognizance taken on 18.11.1998 - Bar of expiry of 15 days is for taking cognizance - Complaint cannot be dismissed merely on this ground. (Smt.Hem Lata Gupta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0060 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 30 cheques - One notice issued - 10 complaints limiting three cheques per each complaint filed - Cheques issued under various invoices - Held, each transaction under each invoice being separate, issue of cheque in discharge of the debt under the said invoice constitute a separate offence - There is nothing illegal in having filed ten different complaints. (City Automobiles & Anr. Vs J.K.Industries Limited & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (A.P.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (A.P.) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Date of cheque - Corrected four times to extend its validity - Period of validity of cheque would commence from last corrected date and not when cheque was originally drawn. (Rengammal and Co. Vs K.Veluchamy), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0343 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal in default - Magistrate cannot restore complaint as he becomes functus officio after passing the dismissal order - High Court can restore the complaint in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Mohammad Ilyas Ahamed Vs Abdul Subhan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 32 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0773 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Trial by Chief Judicial Magistrate - Accused found guilty and fine of Rs.60, 000/- imposed and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment - Held, order of Chief Judicial Magistrate in imposing the fine is valid. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction - Appeal against - Appellate Court with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Magistrate First Class - Can impose a maximum fine of Rs.5, 000/- - If Magistrate is of opinion that accused should receive a punishment more severe than what he is empowered to inflict then he can take recourse to S.325 of Cr.P.C. and submit proceedings to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.55, 000/- - Fine of Rs.60, 000/- and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment - If amount of fine recovered Rs.58, 000/- out of that to be paid to the complainant - Order is valid in view of S.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. (S.Manjunath Vs L.Suresh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Partners who are not incharge of the firm and are not responsible for the conduct of its business are not liable and cannot be proceeded against. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Power of attorney holder - Complaint can be filed by power of attorney holder of payee. (M.Ramaiah Vs Ramanika Silks (P) Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 93 (KARNATAKA) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured for the reason that it does not bear the signature of Managing Director in addition to Finance Manager of the Company and that it does not bear the seal of the Company - No case is made out for offence - Proceedings

quashed. (Managing Director, Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Entry Tax, Hospet), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 242 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0535 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued but not within 15 days - Cheque can be presented again within the permitted period - If cheque bounced again prosecution can be launched on the basis of second notice within 15 days. (M/s Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664 : 2001(3) RCR(CRI) 512 : AIR 2001 SC 2625 : 2001(3) KLT 45 : 2001(3) CTC 309 : 2001 SCC(CRI.) 955 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued u/s 434 Companies Act within 15 days of the information from the Bank regarding return of cheque drawn by a company as unpaid - Amounts to a notice u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664 : 2001(3) RCR(CRI) 512 : AIR 2001 SC 2625 : 2001(3) KLT 45 : 2001(3) CTC 309 : 2001 SCC(CRI.) 955 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - 'Account operation jointly, other Director signature required' - Offence u/s 138 is made out. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or liability' - Having issued the cheque, it is not open to claim that the cheque was not issued towards amount due. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Question whether petitioners had issued blank cheques or whether those were written by them or those were written beyond their instructions by respondent or whether amount due is lesser than the amount endorsed on - These objections are to be taken at the trial - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Intimation to drawee before presentation of cheque - Offence is committed without reference to balance in the account whether sufficient to honour the cheque or not - This is also irrespective of amount of cheque being less or more than the amount arranged to be paid from the account by an agreement with the bank. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #21: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Presentation of cheque within six months Should be at the bank on which the cheque is drawn. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Post dated' cheque - Becomes a cheque only on the date written on the cheque. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provisions of S.138 to be interpreted strictly. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #24: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Non presentation of cheque within six months Absolves the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL

270 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Can be proceeded against only if he was at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - A director cannot be proceed against merely for the reason that he happens to be a director of the company. (Kumari Vs Sankara Raman), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 79 (KERALA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0638 : 2001(2) KLT 503 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 150 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by A in discharge of liability of B & C - In absence of any document creating the liability of B & C in favour of A, mere statement that the cheque was issued by A for and on behalf of B & C is not sufficient to give the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act. (Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs IMC Ltd. & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - By power of attorney holder Complaint can be lodged by power of attorney holder. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Sant Prakash Gupta), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (M.P.) : 2001(2) MPLJ 488 : 2001(II) MPJR 68 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 675 : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0524 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Cheque dishonoured on 13.1.1994 Intimation given to payee on 17.1.1994 - Fifteen days period for sending notice of demand is to be counted from the receipt of information from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (M/s Munoth Investments Ltd. Vs M/s Puttukola Properties Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 325 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 480 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 298 (S.C.) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 50-- - 'A holder in due course' - Means a person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount became payable - Unless contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Pay Order' - Whether a cheque within the meaning of S.138 of the Act? - Held, Yes. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Account not in existence by the date on which the cheque was issued - Cheque dishonoured - No case is made out against the accused for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Deepa Finance Corporation Vs A.K.Mohammed), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0087 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Cheque returned with this endorsement - Amounts to dishonesty as such comes within the definition of the provision. (Thirumala Agencies & Anr. Vs Samala Mareppa & Sons), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0403 : 2001(3) RCR(CRL.) 328 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership - Sleeping partner - Not a person incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Prosecution against sleeping partner quashed. (Smt.Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.)), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 447 (P&H) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sleeping partner - Petition for discharge of sleeping partner u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed - Revision also dismissed by Sessions Court - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint and summoning order - No mention of order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge made in the petition as those orders were not challenged in the petition - Held, mentioning the order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge in the

petition not fatal. (Smt.Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.)), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 447 (P&H) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards discharge of loan - Fact that same loan liability subsequently became subject matter of arbitration by Registrar and that award was passed against accused drawer, does not absolve accused drawer of liability of criminal offence. (The Yamakanamardi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs Raju Basavantrao Bhosale), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre-mature complaint - Notice served on 2.12.1994 and complaint filed on 12.12.1994 before expiry of 15 days of service of notice Complaint dismissed - Cause of action arises after expiry of 15 days of service of notice. (Ishwar Rama Gunaga Vs Ramdas Anant Prabhu), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0764 #12: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence There is no power to compound an offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ram Raghav Chaturvedi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (M.P.) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Any liability- Means any kind of liability of the drawer and not any other's liability, unless the payee, the drawer and the original debtor entered into any agreement to that effect. (Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs IMC Ltd. & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Seven cheques - All dishonoured - Seven complaints - Conviction in all complaints - Sentence will run concurrently as it is a single transaction of `Khata' account - Provisions of S.427 Cr.P.C. will apply. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal for default - Default in appearance of complaint was primarily on account of wrong noting of date - Complaint restored to its original number. (Manisha Trading Pvt.Ltd. Vs State & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (DELHI) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Contention of accused that he issued a blank cheque which was used by complainant and was not issued in discharge of liability - Held, this contention cannot be raised in revision. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Even if there is a civil dispute between the parties and the accused have issued a cheque for the payment of the amount in question and if the cheque is dishonoured it will make an offence under S.138. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Offence is committed Insufficiency of funds when cheque was presented need not to be proved. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or liability' - Presumption is that cheque was issued for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability - Accused can rebut the presumption by proving otherwise. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint case and police case over same matter - Magistrate to stay complaint case and call for a report from police - S.210 Cr.P.C. is not attracted where complaint is u/s 138 NI Act as cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act can only be taken on a complaint filed by payee. (Peter Mathew Vs Betty John), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 634 (KERALA)

#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Court becomes functus officio and Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall his order - Restoration of complaint can be ordered by High Court - In view of fact that second complaint of offence of dishonour of cheque is not possible on account of limitation coming in way, complaint dismissed for default under unavoidable circumstances, merits restoration. (Smt.R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0573 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 124, 5, 6, 7-- - Pay order - Is not a cheque Dishonour of pay order - Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Endorsee of cheque can file criminal complaint but he has to satisfy the Court that cheque was endorsed in his favour for valuable consideration. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Surety of debtor when issues a cheque - In that case also S.138 will be attracted in case of dishonour. (Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs IMC Ltd. & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 : 2005 SCC (CRI.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. LJ 4745 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque if issued to cheat - Prosecution u/s 138 NI Act and also under S.420 IPC can be launched - Offence of cheating will be made out if it is established that accused had intention to cheat at the time of issuance of cheque and dishonour of cheque caused damage to mind, body or reputation of the complainant. (M/s OPTS Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of A.P.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0628 : 2001(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 312 : 2001 CRI LJ 1489 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Fine equivalent to amount of cheque imposed - Order set aside - Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Magistrate can however award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Notice' - Sent by registered post - Drawer intimated by post, 'received one empty envelope without any content in it, therefore request you to kindly send the content, if any' - Complainant sending fresh notice after representation of cheque - Complaint filed thereafter is maintainable as the case of the accused is that he had not received the earlier notice. (M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs M/s Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. & Ors.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 159 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 174 (S.C.) : AIR 2001 SC 676 : 2000(1) REC CRI R 646 : 2001(6) SCC 463 : 2001(1) U.P.CR.R 431 : 2001(2) GLR 1770 : 2001(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 88 : 2001(1) CRIMES 198 : 2001 CRI LJ 972 : 2001(1) JCC 106 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF CHQUES 36 : 2001(1) KLT 528 : 2001 DCR 198 : 2001 CCR 159 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque drawn by one of the accused - Notice to drawer alone and not the other accused - Process issued against both accused - Order issuing process against person who had not drawn the cheque and to whom notice under Section 138 not given quashed. (Bipin J.Shah Vs Smt.Niru B.Mehta & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (BOMBAY) : 2001(2) MH.L.J. 632 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Retired Director who did not function as Director either on date of cheque or when cause of action arose for non payment cannot be prosecuted. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that cheque was issued by authorised signatory of Company at instruction of accused who were incharge of day-to-day affairs of company and that they had taken a vital role in issuing cheque - Held, no ground to quash the complaint. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of complaint - Court is within its power to consider material which accused may produce even before the commencement of trial to decide whether accused is to be discharged - Public document and indisputable document can be looked into - Form 32 under Companies Act and Rules is a public document. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Punishment - Appeal Suspension of sentence - Trial Court awarded sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5, 000/- Suspension of sentence subject to execution of bond of Rs.60, 000/and deposit of Rs.60, 000/- - Order set aside - Conditions imposed should be commensurate with or proportionate to the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the conditions imposed should not be more onerous or stringent than the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the same should be just and reasonable and in accordance with natural justice - Conditions imposed being unjust and unreasonable cannot be sustained. (Ravi Vs Aravindan), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (KERALA) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proceedings under Ss.420, 506 & 120-B IPC not maintainable simultaneously with proceedings under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Subhash Chandra Das Vs State & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 'Request to make payment within a week failing which the matter will be referred by us to our legal department' - Not a notice as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act - Complaint quashed. (Mayfair Knitting Industries Limited, Chennai Vs G.P.Vijyakumara), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 288 (MADRAS) #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Complaint singed by the counsel but not by the complainant - Returned - Complaint filed again when limitation had expired - Complaint not to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the criteria. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 117-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Drawee is entitled to compensation - Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law remedy for recovery of amount covered by cheque. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque if issued to cheat - Prosecution u/s 138 NI Act and also under S.420 IPC can be launched - Section 138 NI Act is not introduced in lieu of S.420 IPC. (M/s OPTS Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of A.P.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0628 : 2001(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 312 : 2001 CRI LJ 1489 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Intimation from bank regarding dishonour of cheque received on 22.4.1998 - Period of 15 days to send demand notice to drawer of cheque will begin from 23.4.1998. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt - Pleadings - An assertion in the complaint reading 'Towards the part satisfaction of the business debt the accused issued a cheque bearing No....' - Held, from the averments in the complaint, it cannot be held that there is no assertion that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. (M/s. T.M.T.(India) Limited. Vs M/s.Parameswara Traders), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 511 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0758 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused informing complainant before presentation of cheque that amount mentioned in cheque does not represent the correct quantum of liability of the accused and that a fresh cheque can be issued based on correct

ascertainment of accounts and advising him not to present the cheque - Held, such a letter does not constitute any defence to the charge u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s. T.M.T.(India) Limited. Vs M/s.Parameswara Traders), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 511 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0758 #17: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction - Revision - Entire payment tendered and accepted during pendency of revision - As payment has been accepted and the offence being compoundable as such conviction and setence set aside. (M/s Narindera Textile Vs Girdhari Lal Bansal), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (P&H) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0525 #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction - It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business. (Ramesh Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Firm in whose favour cheque was issued situated at place `K' - Firm had also an account at place `J' - Cheque deposited at place `J' and dishonoured - Cheque was issued in the name of the firm at place `K' - Goods were sent from place `K' to place `J' - Notice issued from place `J' on behalf of the firm of place `K' Complaint filed at place `K' - Held, Court at place `K' has jurisdiction to try the case. (Ramesh Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Becomes a cheque on the date which is written thereon - Six months period has to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque and not any earlier date on which the cheque was made over by the drawer to the drawee. (Ashok Yeshwant Badave Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 249 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0375 : 2001(3) SCC 726 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque amount Rs.9972/- - Notice for payment of Rs.3871/- Held, the payee or the holder in due course must demand payment of the amount covered by the cheque - If the demand is for a lesser amount or an higher amount not covered by the cheque then the prosecution must fail as the statutory requirement of the provision is not fulfilled. (M/s.Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/s.Citi Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (A.P.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.) 411 : 2001(2) L.S. 71 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque amount Rs.9972/- - Notice for payment of Rs.3871/- - Typographical mistake - Offence under Section 138 'being a technical offence' all the technical formalities as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act must be complied with. (M/s.Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/s.Citi Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (A.P.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.) 411 : 2001(2) L.S. 71 #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent - On request of accused cheque against presented and again dishonoured - Notice sent again - Complaint on the basis of second notice - Barred by limitation - Complaint should have been filed on failure to make payment on issuance of first notice. (Pradyut Kumar Mohanty Vs Dilip Singh Meheta), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (ORISSA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0355 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Duly constituted power of attorney can file complaint - There is no specific bar under the provisions of S.142 of the Act for filing a complaint by the special power of attorney. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint by Recovery Manager who held special power of attorney from Managing Director - No illegality in filing the complaint - Even in the absence of the minutes of the Board, the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise Recovery Manager to launch the prosecution. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence sprouted from different cheques filed at two different places - Parties same - Offence is of the same nature -

Transfer of complaint from one place to another place ordered in the interest of justice and also for the convenience of conducting the trial and disposal of all the cases. (M/s Ayyannar Agencies and Anr. Vs Sri Vishnu Cement Limited & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleader - Includes any person appointed with permission of Court to act in such proceedings. (S.Manian Vs P.M.Nachimuthu), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by Power of Attorney holder - Power document not presented initially - Court taking cognizance of complaint - It is illegal, but does not vitiates the proceedings - Illegality is curable u/s 460(e) Cr.P.C. (S.Manian Vs P.M.Nachimuthu), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Withdrawal of complaint Taking coercive steps against the accused after the complainant submits application for withdrawal of complaint on complaint's continuous absence is an abuse of the process of Court. (Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0317 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Withdrawal of complaint - Only option available to the Court is either to grant sanction to withdraw from the prosecution or to acquit accused under S.256 (1) Cr.P.C. (Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0317 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person who was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company is liable to be proceeded against - Other Directors can be proceeded against only if it is specifically alleged in complaint that they too participated in commission of offence - Cognizance taken against other Directors in absence of specific allegation against them, is liable to be quashed. (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 10 Cheques dishonoured - Two notices each covering five cheques served on two different days and single complaint filed - Single cause of action arose, not when cheques were dishonoured but on service of notice and on failure to make payment - Single complaint cannot be said to be bad in law - Procedural provision of S.219 of Cr.P.C. held is not applicable to proceedings under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Single trial is in fact advantageous to accused. (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction - Appeal against - Compounding of offence - Parties entering into compromise - Accused paid the amount of cheque - Permission accorded to compound the offence. (M.L.Gandhi Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Civil suit as well as complaint u/s 138 filed - Civil suit decreed in favour of drawee - No ground to quash criminal proceedings which have to continue to its logical end. (N.K.Gupta Vs Vijay Kumar Madan), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (P&H) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0462 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand not only of cheque amount but also of other amounts and interest - Notice is not invalid for inclusion of such amounts in demand, if amounts are indicated separately - If accused has paid amount of only dishonoured cheque, he is deemed to have complied with notice. (T.M.Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar & Anr. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of prosecution witnesses - Issue of process before filing list of witnesses - Omission does not vitiate proceedings nor does it invalidate order of issue of summons - Omission is curable by producing list to accused before evidence is taken - If list of witnesses is not filed by complainant, it may mean there is no witness to be examined on his behalf - If Complainant makes an application with list of witnesses subsequently showing sufficient cause for non-filing of list alongwith complaint, Court in its discretion may allow it.

(T.M.Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar & Anr. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Trial Court convicted accused - During pendency of appeal parties arriving at settlement - Accused depositing amount of cheque before Appellate Court - Complainant undertook that he will not press for conviction and sentence - Appellate Court to consider subsequent events and pass orders according to law - Appellate Court will consider whether conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition of fine is to be passed. (M/s Cranex Ltd. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 183 (S.C.) : 2000(2) ALT 275 (SC) : 2000(7) SCC 388 : 2000(4) REC CRI R 357 : AIR 2000 SC 3145 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - No form is prescribed of the notice - The essential elements of the notice are (1) it has to be in writing, (2) it has to be given within 15 days of receipt of information regarding return of cheque unpaid and (3) demand for payment of the amount of the cheque has to be made in the notice. (Hammanna S.Nayak Vs Vijay Kumar Kalani & Anr.), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0649 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed before Court which had no territorial jurisdiction but was otherwise competent to take cognizance of offence - Complaint returned for presentation before proper Court - Complaint represented before proper Court - Delay in representing the complaint will not make the complaint barred by time. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.201). (Abdul Azeez Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KERALA) #15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Period of 15 days envisaged in S.138 (c) - Begins to run on the day next to the day on which the service of notice has been effected. (Patel Dinneshkumar Shivram Somdas Vs Patel Keshavlal Mohanlal), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 7 (GUJARAT) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by unregistered Partnership firm - Complaint is not maintainable. (Partnership Act, 1932, S.69). (Amit Desai Vs M/s Shine Enterprises), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 60 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0547 : 2000 CRI. LJ 2386 (AP) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company a Sick Industrial Unit - It is not a ground to quash complaint u/ss 138, 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Thapar Agro Mills Vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - A fact to be decided at the time of trial - Proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage. (Meenakshi Gupta Vs Smt.Sushma Kedia), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0668 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - FIR and complaint case over same subject matter - Both cases should be tried and disposed of separately by the same Judicial Officer and disposed of simultaneously, but by different judgments. (Meenakshi Gupta Vs Smt.Sushma Kedia), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0668 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not disclosing any offence - Accused can approach High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings at any stage when no offence is made out - High Court need not direct the parties to file proper application before Magistrate before discharge. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT) #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Any debt or other liability' - Complainant giving a debt of Rs.15 lacs to accused - Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt - Dishonour of cheques - No criminal offence under S.138 is made out - Cheques were issued as collateral security by accused and not to discharge any existing debt - Case is of civil nature. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT)

#22: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of cognizance sought on the ground that no notice was served - Materials available not sufficient to prove the plea - In absence of evidence, it is difficult to take a decision as to whether the petitioner avoided to receive the notice or not, or as to whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation or not - Order of cognizance not to be interfered with. (Subrata Kumar Dash Vs Pradeep Kumar Ram), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (ORISSA) : (2001) 18 OCR 733 : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0749 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cheque reported stolen' - Cheque dishonoured with this endorsement - It shows intention of drawer that he wanted to stop payment - Offence u/s 138 is made out - Merely because drawer issued a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of payment, it will not preclude an action under Section 138 by the drawee or the holder of cheque in due course. (Chandran Vs Sathyanandan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0010 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by one person towards discharge of debt of another person - Complaint can be made against drawer of the cheque only Proceedings against the petitioner who is not the drawer, quashed. (Gummadi Industries Ltd. Vs Khushroo F.Engineer M/s Zen Global Finance Ltd.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 209 (MADRAS) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 21 days period mentioned in the demand notice - That by itself does not make the notice illegal. (Hammanna S.Nayak Vs Vijay Kumar Kalani & Anr.), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0649 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction of accused Compromise between parties - Accused paying entire amount of cheque - Compounding of offence allowed by Court - Conviction set aside. (P.V.V.Raghu Vs Smt.N.K.Laxmi), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 477 (A.P.) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Acquittal by trial Court - Sessions Judge in revision convicted accused - Revision and not appeal is the remedy available - Appeal lies only if conviction is recorded by trial Court - Where conviction is recorded by Sessions Jude, not on trial, but in exercise of revisional powers, no appeal lies against such order of conviction Remedy is only revision. (T.V.Nagaraj Vs B.Anjanappa), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 290 (KARNATAKA) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Prosecution of all the five partners of the firm - Petitioners had executed power of attorney in favour of one partner Petitioners not vicariously liable - For holding a person vicariously liable for the offence committed by a Company or a firm it is the actual role played by such a person in the management and conduct of the business of the company or the firm. (Saraswathy Amma Vs M/s Swil Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (DELHI) : 2000(3) REC CRI R 315 : 2000(2) AD (DELHI) 244 : 2000(52) DRJ 261 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Cheque issued by Company and signed by one `D' its Managing Director - `D' sought to be prosecuted in his personal capacity - No allegation in the complaint that the offence was committed by the company and that `D' is sought to be prosecuted by virtue of the provision u/s 141 of the Act in his capacity as an officer or the person in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against `D' quashed. (D.Chandra Reddy Vs Ghourisetti Prabhakar & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (A.P.) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defective complaint but filed within time Returned for removing certain defects - Date not fixed for their re-presentation - Complaint represented after period of limitation - Date for presentation of complaint would be the date it was initially presented and that being within limitation, it would be held to be validly filed and on that count, accused cannot claim any benefit. (Vinayagam & Ors. Vs Subhash Chandran), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0228 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defective complaint - There is no procedure in the Code for returning the defective complaint for removal of defects and re-presentation of the same - Complainant has to suffer for defects in the complaint. (Vinayagam & Ors. Vs Subhash

Chandran), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0228 #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of delivery of notice - Not mentioned in complaint - Not a ground for rejection of complaint - It is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court. (Swaran Munjal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 332 (ALLAHABAD) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre mature complaint - It can either await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later - Complaint cannot be dismissed for the reason that it was presented at an earlier date and it also does not confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed - A case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 : (2000) 10 JT (SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ 531 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Trial Court awarding six months simple imprisonment - Accused paying amount due under cheque and interest thereon pending appeal - Held, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused back to jail - Imposing penalty of fine would meet ends of justice - Sentence substituted with fine of Rs.5, 000/-. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 : (2000) 10 JT (SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ 531 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Document sought to be produced by recalling a witness - Authority to file complaint by a resolution of Board of Directors - However, alongwith complaint another document filed - Relevant document mentioned in the list of documents filed alongwith complaint - Refusal of lower Court to recall witness for marking the correct document, not proper - The principle that prosecution cannot be permitted at a later stage during the trial to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case does not apply to a case where an honest mistake made at an earlier stage is sought to be corrected - Court is not to punish the parties for the mistake committed by them or their counsel - Witness to be recalled for producing the document - Petition allowed. (M/s Recon Agrotech Limited Vs M/s Vijaya Sales Corporation & Ors.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 427 (A.P.) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' - Held, if Banker's name is shown in the Payee's column before the account holders name and it is crossed specially in conformity with S.124 of the Act, then it can be treated as cross cheque specially authorising the bank to collect it on behalf of the account holder and remit to his account. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Acquittal by trial Court - Sessions Judge in revision convicted accused - Held, only an appeal against order of acquittal lies to High Court No revision against such order is entertainable - Order passed by Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction - The same set aside. (T.V.Nagaraj Vs B.Anjanappa), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 290 (KARNATAKA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint not maintainable by bank - Bank was not the payee - Complaint is maintainable by petitioner who is the payee. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Vicarious liability of Directors Directors are not liable for prosecution unless it is alleged in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and that cheques were issued with their consent and connivance - Directors are not vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed against Company, Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director - Petitioner alleged to have resigned from post of Director even before issuance of cheque - However, complaint states that Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director are in-charge of and responsible to the company and looking after the day to day affairs of the company Disputed question of fact - To be decided at the trial - Not permissible to go into the questions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed. (Rohinton Noria Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P.) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Court has no power to impose default sentence of imprisonment for non payment of compensation - Only recovery proceedings can be initiated. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Appellate Court has power to award compensation or fixing the quantum of compensation either by reversing or modifying the sentence of the trial Court. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Closure of account - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out - Closure of account strengthens the intention of accused to cheat - Whether account was closed with dishonest intention or otherwise can be looked into at trial stage. (Rajendra Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Premature complaint - High Court not to interfere in writ jurisdiction - Accused to approach trial Magistrate to recall the process. (Rajendra Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461 #20: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to give a written notice in a correct address to the drawer of the cheque - Once this legal obligation is discharged, his right to prosecute the offender is not curtailed if the notice validly tendered was not received by the drawer of the cheque. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #21: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent at the correct address - Received back with endorsement 'No such addressee in B.29 Industrial Estate' - This endorsement alleged to be obtained by gaining over the postal peon - In other words correctness of the address on the envelope not disputed - Held, the question of gaining over the postal peon is a factual allegation which has to be considered only at the time of trial by referring to the evidence Order of cognizance not liable to be disturbed on this ground. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #22: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - One month - Computation - The date on which the cause of action arose is to be excluded. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by an employee of company in discharge of liability of Company - Cheque issued not on behalf of the company Dishonour of cheque - Company is not liable - Proceedings against the company quashed - Held, under S.138 the person who is liable for dishonour of cheque will be the one who has drawn and issued the cheque. (Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd. Vs P.Surya Kumari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 555 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0216 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of company must contain factual foundation disclosing their liability - Mere whisper in complaint suggesting their involvement - Not sufficient. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Main factors to maintain a complaint are: (i) The cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of whole or in part of a debt or liability; (ii) The cheque should be presented for payment within six months or

its specific period, whichever is earlier; (iii) The payee or holder should give notice of demand within 15 days of received information of dishonour which may be due to insufficient funds or the amount payable exceeds the arrangement; (iv) The drawer gets 15 days time after receipt of the notice to make the payment and only if he fails to pay, he is liable to be prosecuted; (v) Complaint can be made only by payee or the holder in due course within one month of the arising of the cause of action. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Loan advanced in the year 1985 - Cheque issued in the year 1990 - By the time the cheque was issued, the debt was time barred - Debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque - No offence is made out on dishonour of cheque. (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.T.V.Ramanujachari), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non mention in complaint that notice has been served - Complaint not maintainable. (M/s Shakti Travel & Tours Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 370(1) (S.C.) : 2002(9) SCC 415 : JT 2000(7) SC 563 : 2003(2) ISJ (BANKING) 0380 : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0555 : 2001 AIR SCW 2307 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 465 : 2000(4) CRIMES 150 : 2003(SUPPL.) ACC 663 (SC) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint and sworn statement - Not to be read disjunctively - Both supplement and complement each other - Cognizance of offence to be taken if the allegation in the complaint and sworn statement together make out a case for the offence alleged. (Pearl Food Products Vs V.K.Pareed Rawther), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 609 (KERALA) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - Notice received by accused on 7.11.1998 - Cause of action to file complaint arose on 22.11.1998 - Complaint could be filed on or before 22.12.1998 - Complaint filed on 6.1.1999 is beyond period of limitation - Complaint dismissed. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint beyond period of limitation Complaint dismissed irrespective of the fact that it is filed u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as well as Ss.420, 467, 471, 470, 120-B IPC, as the summoning order is only u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint under the provisions of IPC, if so advised. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Director of Company who issued cheque resigned - Not a ground to quash complaint against him - The liability under the provision arises against a person who signs or issues the cheque which is subsequently dishonoured - Veracity of the averment will depend on the evidence produced at the trial. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Cheque presented a number of times and dishonoured - Held, cause of action arises only when notice under S.138 is served upon drawer. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Rs.550/- costs of notice claimed besides cheque amount - Amount of cheque clearly mentioned - Notice not invalid - Drawer could pay the amount of cheque only. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #9: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by Company - Dishonoured Complaint filed and summoning order issued - Later on Company declared sick under Sick Industrial Companies Act - Held, it does not affect the proceedings - No ground to quash the complaint. (Rom Industries Ltd. Vs State of M.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 664 (M.P.) #10: JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (c) - Notice - Date of receipt - To be clearly made out as without this it is not possible to reckon period of 15 days - Before an order summoning an accused person is passed by the Magistrate, it has to be made out by the complainant that the drawer has failed to make the payment to him within fifteen days of the

receipt of the notice. (Kumari Sunita Charak Vs Ajay Kumar Sharma), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 679 (J&K) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0567 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Security - Undated cheque issued as security Subsequently there was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant - Accused issued 36 fresh cheques - Default in payment of instalments - Complainant entered the date on the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim the amount - Held, cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. Vs M/s NCC Finance Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - The facts stated in the complaint must disclose commission of an offence by each one of the accused - There must be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself attracting the ingredients of S.138 of the Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint - Allegations made in the complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the complaint on file and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused for the alleged offence - The sworn statement and statements recorded on oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on complaint do not form an integral part of the complaint. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Branch Manager - Competent to file complaint Cheque issued and given to the Branch Manager for encashment - He is the holder in due course - He presented the cheque for encashment on behalf of the principal company - Cheque dishonoured - Held, Branch Manager is competent to file the complaint even without there being any authorisation since he is responsible for all his acts on behalf of the company. (Bicycle Manufacturing Corporation Vs Samrat Shipping Company Pvt.Ltd.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 34 (P&H) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0539 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0220 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No amount of evidence can be looked into without allegations made in the complaint. (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.T.V.Ramanujachari), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658 #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors, Chairman, Manager etc. with clear averment in the complaint that they were responsible for non payment of the amount after receipt of notice within statutory period - Complaint held, maintainable and not liable to be quashed. (Natesha Singh Vs M/s Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt.Ltd.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 98 (MADRAS) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0616 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0295 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0031 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0538 : 2001(2) LW (CRI.) 611 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back with postal endorsement 'Not claimed, Returned to sender' - No ground to quash proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was no service of notice - What is the purport of endorsement made on the letter are questions of fact which have to be gone into during trial. (V.Venugopal Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (A.P.) : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0199 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt or liability' - Amount payable in 1991 - Drawer issuing blank cheque in 1996 - Cheque dishonoured - By the time the cheque was issued the amount payable was barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was obtained before the expiry of 3 years - The debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque and the accused cannot be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Ashwini Satish Bhat (Mrs.) Vs Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0444 : 2000(1) RCR(CRL.) 0829 : 1999(1) GLT 408 : 2000(5) BCR 9 : 1999(1) GOA LT 408 : 1999(2) BC 519 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent at the address given by drawer himself - Notice received back with endorsement 'addressee not found' - Voters list produced by drawer by way of rebuttal evidence to prove that he was not residing at given address but elsewhere during relevant time - But neither the initials of the drawer nor the name of father of the drawer is shown in the said entry - Voters list prepared a year earlier to date on which drawer himself gave his address - Certified copy of decree obtained by drawer in suit filed by him in same month in which notice in the present case was sent, shows that his address is same

to which notice was sent - Held, rebuttal evidence to prove non receipt of notice is liable to be rejected - Notice is deemed to have been duly served - Conviction passed by trial Court is to be upheld and confirmed. (A.Sathyanarayana Vs C.Nagaraj), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 153 (KARNATAKA) #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death prior to presentation of cheque Partnership firm - Cheque issued by one `V' on behalf of partnership firm - Death of `V' before presentation of cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against wife and step son of `V' Held, cognizance cannot be taken against his legal heirs who were not partners or is a partner or is incharge of the firm - Trial Court taking cognizance for the reason that legal heirs are responsible for certain acts of their predecessor and they should also be held liable for criminal action for facing trial and to undergo punishment - Complaint quashed. (Draupadi Devi alias Maya Sippi Vs The State of Rajasthan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0797 : 2000(4) REC(CRI.) 257 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Complaint filed in a Court having no jurisdiction - Complaint returned for presenting in a Court having territorial jurisdiction Complaint represented before proper Court after expiry of period of limitation - Not barred by limitation. (Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (KERALA) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Amount of cheque already paid - Specifically denied - Held, there is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. (Potuganti Sreenivas Vs Public Prosecutor & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (A.P.) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Guarantee - Loan taken by son - Accused issued cheque as guarantee on behalf of his son - Cheque dishonoured - Ledger account of drawer showed that payment had been received by him - Proceedings quashed. (M.S.Harchand Vs Prem Nath Dhawan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution - Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company - Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement, which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused, describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings - Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - `Cause of action' - Cheque to be presented within six months or its period of validity - Notice in writing to drawer to be given within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank - Payment to be made within 15 days

of the receipt of notice - On failure to make the payment cause of action will accrue to the payee - Limitation will start running on expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice - Limitation for filing complaint is one month after expiry of the said period of 15 days. (Narinder Kumar Vs Harnam Singh), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358 #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors Averment in complaint that accused Nos.2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant - No ground to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sunil Sareen Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0725 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0322 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Courts must take into consideration all aspects of the case including the financial loss caused to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, the quantum of the amount involved in the cheque, status of the accused as well as of the complainant, time and costs consumed in the litigation etc. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Magistrate of First Class can impose fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Amount involved in cheques amounting to Rs.26, 501/- Trial Court imposed fine of Rs.10, 000/- - Cheques issued in the year 1990 - Almost 10 years have lapsed - Complainant must have suffered financially due to nonavailability of the amount - Respondents are the Company and its Managing Director - Held, Court below was in error in imposing a meagre fine of Rs.10, 000/- for the problems created and the loss suffered by the complainant - Taking into consideration all these aspects fine enhanced to Rs.31500/- with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for four months in case of non payment of fine. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Non impleading of the other Directors of the Company - Contention to be raised at the trial only. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - If it discloses the amount for which the cheque was issued and dishonoured, in addition to claims such as Bank charges and notice charges - It cannot be said that the notice is vitiated especially when the respective claims are severable. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Where the drawer gives blank cheque, the drawee is entitled to fill it up and make a demand. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Promissory note in favour of daughter who authorised father to collected the contents of the promissory note - Notice issued and thereafter accused issued cheques in the name of father for the amount claimed - Cheques bounced on presentation - Complaint - Contention that father is endorsee without consideration - But the endorsement is 'to collect' and the same clothes the complainant with the authority to issue notice and realise the amount by filing civil suits and also criminal complaint - Cheques were issued in the name of father who became payee under the cheques - It cannot be said that complainant has no authority to file the complaint. (Ch.Nageshwara Rao Vs B.V.Subbaiah & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 464 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0068 #11: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Complainant had been filling in the cheques in the name of the accused for different amount at his will and has been dealing with the same in the manner he liked and it appears from the record that it was so - Possibility of the cheque being filled in by the complainant as per his won volition for no lawful consideration is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out and moreso when this cheque is

not proved to have been issued in lieu of the alleged amount of Rs.30, 000/- borrowed by the accused from the complainant - There is no subsisting debt or other liability established which the accused was legally bound to discharge or was legally enforceable debt or other liability nor it is proved that the cheque was issued with a view to discharge such debt/liability - Held, accused is liable to be acquitted solely on this ground. (Narinder Kumar Vs Harnam Singh), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 27-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file a complaint. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern Prosecution can be launched against proprietary concern by putting cause title as proprietary concern represented by its proprietor. (N.Vaidyanathan Deepkika Milk Marketing Vs M/s Dodia Dairy Limited), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 182 (MADRAS) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand is to be of cheque amount Where in addition to payment of cheque amount drawee has also demanded payment of balance of principal amount of loan and up-to-date interest and the amounts are severable, notice cannot be held invalid. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr. Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Separate demand must be made in respect of each dishonoured cheque, by each of complainants - Common notice combining claims of two complainants is not valid even though complainants are related to each other as husband and wife - Where one combined notice of husband and wife was issued demanding payment of total amount of loan including amounts of dishonoured cheques, it is to be held that there is no proper notice of demand - Complaint not maintainable. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr. Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that payment had already been made to drawee through Bank Drafts before the bouncing of cheques and drawee was called upon not to present the cheques - Held, these are questions of fact - Complaint on this ground cannot be quashed - Accused directed to move an application before Magistrate praying that no offence under S.138 of the act is made out on above facts Trial Court to go into these questions at the outset before issuance of notice as envisaged under S.251 Cr.P.C. (M/s Shree Sarla Weavers Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Punjab State CoOperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque presented for collection at place `K' - Cheque dishonoured - Notice demanding the amount due issued from Registered office of the company located at place `H' - Payment not made within the prescribed period of 15 days - Complaint filed in Court at place `H' - Proper - Complaint need not be filed at the place of dishonour of cheque only. (Vasavi Fertilisers Dealer Vs Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0332 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0130 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complaint filed by one of the partners - Death of partner - Proceedings would not abate - Some other partner be brought on record to pursue the complaint. (Dior International (P) Ltd. Vs M/s Raghuvansh Enterprises), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 80 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0071 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0644 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back with endorsement 'addressee out of station - door locked for 7 days' - There is presumption of deemed service of notice. (M/s Aparana Agencies Vs P.Sudhakar Rao), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0179 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0765 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Managing Director of the Company convicted under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - A case under Ss.420, 471, 467 IPC also registered against the Managing Director and two Directors of the accused company on the ground that they forged a receipt of Rs.40 lacs in token of having made the payment to Complainant - As two Directors are women and not convicted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act as such equity demands that anticipatory bail should be allowed to them - Anticipatory bail also allowed to Managing Director till decision of appeal filed by him against conviction u/s 138 of the Act. (Pawan Sachdeva Vs State (U.T., Chandigarh)), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (P&H) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0077 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0642 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - When a cheque is issued as a security, no complaint lies under S.138 of the Act. (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0323 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner already resigned at the relevant time - Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the petitioner has resigned from the said post of the Company w.e.f. 19.1.1991 - Complainant placed on record a copy of the Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies showing that the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9.7.1997 - Both these forms have been issued by the Registrar of Companies - It is a disputed question of fact - Can only be decided at the trial. (B.C.Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0309 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused purchased Sun Flower Seeds and issued cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs - Dishonour of cheques - Complaint under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Sanction of Market Committee under S.84 of Agricultural Produce Marketing Act is not required - Sanction is only required when there is dispute of civil nature with regard to purchase, weight, payment etc. between the parties. (M/s S.B.Nagaraj & Co. Vs M/s Sri Ganesh Oil Mill), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0489 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0076 : ILR 1999 KARNATKA 4020 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Loan taken and cheque issued - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint lodged alleging that accused have committed an offence under S.420 r/w S.107 IPC and S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR on the contention that it was a commercial transaction - Held, contention not tenable - In fact many a cheating were committed in course of commercial and money transactions. (Yada Anjaneyulu Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0019 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed - Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim made against assets of the company - Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0502 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Mens rea - For committing an offence under S.138 of the Act mens rea is not an essential ingredient. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351 #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Vicarious liability - Complaint against Company, its Chairman, Managing Director, nine Directors and three officers of the Company - Complaint against Chairman and others quashed - Nothing on record to show that there was any act committed by them to draw the inference that they were vicariously liable - As regards Managing Director it could safely be inferred from his duties that he was vicariously liable for the offence. (FMI Investments Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0652 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0013 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0269 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Arises only once - Complaint filed after issuing a second notice and after 45 days of receipt of the first notice by the drawer Complaint is not maintainable. (Adril D' Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint under S.142 - Examination of the

complainant is necessary - It is incumbent on the Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, to satisfy himself as to the veracity of the complainant - Dispensation of taking sworn statement will be in contravention of S.200 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.200) (Harihara Iyer Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 360 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0268 : 2000(1) KLT 100 : 2001 BANK J 633 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is barred by limitation - Cause of action can arise only once - As the cause of action first arose on failure to make payment when notice was issued for the first dishonour of cheque second dishonour and service of notice will not give fresh cause of action. (Kiran Overseas Exports Ltd. Vs Air Force Naval Housing Board), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 36 (P&H) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of interest, cost. etc. in addition to cheque amount - Notice will not be invalid if break up of the claim i.e. the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified - Other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice - If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque then notice is bad. (Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K.Churiwal & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (S.C.) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 268 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0275 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0546 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780 : 2000(2) MH.LJ (SC) 301 : AIR 2000 SC 828 : 2000(1) ALT(CRL.) 181 : 2000(2) SCC 380 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Notice sent not to present cheques for encashment - Inspite of it cheques presented for collection - Cheques returned as instructions were given to bank to `stop payment' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque within meaning of Section 138 of the Act. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Except for the bald statement that they are Directors, there is no evidence to show that at the time of commission of offence they were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Held, complaint against such Directors quashed. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Company - Authorisation - Complaint filed on 24.9.1997 - Resolution giving authorisation to Manager passed on 17.11.1997 i.e. after filing the complaint - There is no distinction between civil and criminal law as far as authorisation or power of attorney is concerned - Authorisation given by complainant in favour of Manager cannot be thrown out on the ground that there was no authorisation in his favour prior to filing of the complaint. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Refusal to receive notice' - Amounts to proper and valid service. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #11: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by Respondent No.3 in her individual capacity and not as a partner of the firm - Respondents Nos.2, 4 & 5 not liable to be prosecuted. (S.K.D.Goel Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (ALLAHABAD) #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal in default - Summons issued to accused for appearance - Petitioner not present on the date fixed - Complaint dismissed in default - Order set aside - On the date fixed for appearance of accused, nothing was to be done by petitioner when petitioner was duly represented by Advocate - Magistrate did not exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner. (M/s Steel Strips Ltd. Vs M/s Jyoti Mechanical Movements), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 213 (P&H) : 1999 (1) AIJ 0552 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a

presumption under Section 139 must follow - Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a security to make payment of the liability of another company - Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of liability of any other person, it amounts to a liability which has been undertaken by the drawer of the cheque. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0557 #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvency petition - Mere presentation or pendency of insolvency petition does not disentitle the complainant to approach the Criminal Court seeking for punishment to the accused for the offence already committed. (C.T.Thangaraj Vs Murugesan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0240 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0767 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0120 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3436 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - One `A' owed legal liability towards `B' - One `D' owed legal liability towards `A' - `D' drawing cheques in favour of `B' in discharge of his own liability towards `A' - Cheque dishonoured - No criminal offence against `A' and `D' is made out - `D' has no legal liability towards `B' - `A' is not liable as cheques were not issued by him - Criminal complaint quashed - Further held for constituting offence under S.138 cheques should have been drawn by drawer having legally enforceable liability in favour of payee and further cheques should have been drawn on an account maintained by drawer. (Kalyani Refineries Ltd. Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0578 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - Means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. (Kalyani Refineries Ltd. Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0578 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Trial commenced and one P.W. examined - Trial Court cannot discharge the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. once trial has commenced. (P.Ganapathy Vs A.Marimuthu Pillay), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (MADRAS) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0094 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0775 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0124 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 2933 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent but no complaint filed - Complaint filed after third dishonour of cheque - Complaint quashed - Cause of action arises only once when first notice is sent. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0375 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Drawee is required to send 15 days notice to drawer demanding payment - Complaint should be filed within one month of receipt of notice by the drawer - Starting date of period of 15 days is the date of receipt of notice by the drawer. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0375 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - No form of notice is prescribed - Notice should only be in writing. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0375 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)

#23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - If tender of the notice by the postman at the address of the accused is proved, and it is established that the notice could not be personally served due to wilful default or deliberate evasion of the accused, then the same may constitute 'receipt of notice'. (M/s Binani Udyog & Anr. Vs State of Raj. & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 574 (RAJASTHAN) #24: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not personally served on the accused Postal endorsement that addressee not available - It is purely a question of fact which can be investigated during the trial of the case as to whether the notice was actually taken by the Postal department to the accused and they evaded the service of the notice - As it is not the case of the accused that the address recorded on the notice is incorrect or that his establishment was closed during those days as such there is no ground to interfere with order taking cognizance and refusing to drop proceedings. (M/s Binani Udyog & Anr. Vs State of Raj. & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 574 (RAJASTHAN) #25: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summoning order - Recall - A summoning order cannot be recalled by the Court issuing it on the basis of probabilities and on the basis of the version given by the accused in his objection. (S.K.D.Goel Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (ALLAHABAD) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Should be sent to the drawer of the cheque and not to all the persons who can be deemed to be liable apart from the drawer of the cheque by virtue of the provision in S.141 of the Act. (K.Pannir Selvam Vs M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Company - Person incharge of Company - Whether the person in question was really in-charge of the affairs of the company and was responsible to the affairs of the Company or not, and as to what functions he was assigned in the affairs of the Company and whether those functions could be considered sufficient to hold that he was in-charge of the affairs of the company are matters which have to be gone into during the trial. (K.Pannir Selvam Vs M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint without signatures - Complaint returned - Complaint with signatures of complainant represented - Complaint shall be deemed to be filed when represented with signatures - Complaint when represented was not within time of accrual of cause of action - Proceedings quashed. (M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legal Representatives cannot be prosecuted for offence committed by deceased drawer under S.138 of the Act - Proceedings quashed. (Bupinder Lima & Ors. Vs State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1999(4) ALL MR 20 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Limitation Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action - This being a special provision, the general provisions of S.468 Cr.P.C. regarding limitation not applicable. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468). (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0058 #7: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Initial stage at which Magistrate is required to apply his mind to allegations of compliant arises as and when an opportunity arises keeping in view provisions of S.190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and after taking cognizance by Magistrate, the same enables him to embark on an enquiry under provisions of Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code and not otherwise. (Subhash Kumar Vs

State of Rajasthan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0058 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Sole proprietorship concern - Complaint filed against firm instead of proprietor - Sole proprietorship concern is not a judicial person to come under Criminal Prosecution - Receipt of notice by any other person may not be acceptable and valid acknowledgment of notice - Complaint is liable to be quashed. (Anas Industries Vs Suresh Bafna), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 701 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0532 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0486 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Specific allegations in the complaint against A-2 to A-6 that they were Directors at the time of issuing cheques - The fact that they ceased to be Directors is a matter to be decided during trial - The accused have to undergo trial and prove the documents on which they rely upon, therefore they are not entitled to be discharged. (Bharat Kumar Modi & Ors. Vs M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 36 (A.P.) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Complaint against accused only without impleading the firm - Complaint is maintainable - Unless it is established that the firm alone was liable to discharge the liability, the complainant could not be compelled to add the firm as accused. (Saravanan Vs G.Sampath), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (MADRAS) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company cannot avert its liability on mere ground that winding up petition was presented prior to company being called upon to pay amount of cheque. (Pankaj Mehra Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 591 (S.C.) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 323 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0256 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0819 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0602 : 2000(2) SCC 756 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - `Payment stopped' - There is no necessity of having an averment in the complaint that cheques were dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the respondent. (K.I.George Vs Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice not given - Cheque presented again and dishonoured - Notice given only after cheque dishonoured second time Complaint validly instituted. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No liability - It is contented that 9 cheques in all were given and whole of the amount was then paid and the receipts have been issued by the Company - This is a matter which is purely factual and on this ground the complaint cannot be quashed. (PGM Spinning Ltd. & Ors. Vs A.P.S.F.Corporation and State), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.P.) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Year and month - Be reckoned according to British Calendar - 30 days not to be taken as equivalent to a month - In the instant case notice issued on 30.12.1996 received by petitioners on 31.12.1996 - Notice period of 15 days ends on 15.1.1997 - Period of one month for making complaint starts from the next day i.e. 16.1.1997 Complaint even if filed on 15.2.1997 would be within time - Complaint filed on 14.2.1997 is not barred by time. (PGM Spinning Ltd. & Ors. Vs A.P.S.F.Corporation and State), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.P.) #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Matter alleged to be compromised - Amount alleged, admitted to be received, but explained that it was only partial payment of debt Complainant not prepared to withdraw case - Case not compoundable - No error on part of Magistrate in proceeding with case - Accused can resummon complainant for cross-examining him on point of compromise and amount paid. (V.M.Chopra Vs State & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 154 (RAJASTHAN) #17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Company Dishonour of cheque - Prosecution of signatory of the cheque without impleading the Company -

No ground to quash the proceedings. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #18: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Seven days notice given demanding payment but complaint filed after expiry of 15 days - No ground to quash the complaint - Notice is valid. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on Calcutta Bank Complaint filed at place `S' where complainant resides - Held, Court at place `S' has the jurisdiction. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvent - Accused declared insolvent by Insolvency Court - Complaint u/s 138 against accused is maintainable - There is no bar in Negotiable Instruments Act or Insolvency Act - Provisions in Insolvency Act apply only to civil proceedings and as against property of insolvent and not with regard to criminal proceedings. (Bharath N.Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 227 (MADRAS) #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Arises on expiry of 15 days from date of receipt of notice by the accused. (Bharath N.Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 227 (MADRAS) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stay of criminal case during pendency of civil suit - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed - Prior to that accused filed a civil suit for recovery of their dues against the complainant and the matter involved in the civil suit and the complaint is similar - Trial of criminal cases cannot be stayed only for the reason that a civil suit involving identical dispute is pending between the parties - As no special circumstances exist in the instant case as such no valid ground exist for stay of criminal proceedings. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stop payment - Even if a cheque is dishonoured because of `Stop payment' instructions to the Bank, still S.138 gets attracted. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compromise - Accused agreeing to pay the amount with interest - Offence under S.138 is not wiped out once it was complete - The complainant may withdraw the complaint in view of the compromise or the Court may show leniency but it cannot be stated that the offence was not made out. (Marimuthu Vs Arumugam), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (MADRAS) #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Complaint - Must be in writing and signed by the complainant. (M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention of accused that he had not taken any loan and cheque in fact was stolen - No intimation to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque as it had been stolen - Record of theft thus not relevant for trial of offence under S.138 of the Act. (Mrs.Saraswathi Vs V.Balakrishnan), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (MADRAS) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvency proceedings - Dishonour of cheque During pendency of insolvency proceedings accused is not absolved from criminal liability under S.138 even if the accused was declared insolvent - Protection given under Sections 29 and 31 of Provincial Insolvency Act is applicable to debtor in respect of civil detention and civil arrest alone. (B.Kannan Vs B.C.Santhanam), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - There is no provision for the summons cases to file an application for discharge under S.245 Cr.P.C. that too, after all the witnesses have been examined. (B.Kannan Vs B.C.Santhanam), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS)

#4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint filed by Manager of the Company - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that Manager was neither drawee nor holder in due course - No ground to quash the complaint - Factual points to be decided by trial Court. (M/s M.B.Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made - No ground to quash the complaint - Point to be decided at trial. (M/s M.B.Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Officer of Quasi Govt. Company issuing cheque on behalf of Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against signatory only without impleading Company - Complaint is not maintainable - Complaint quashed. (S.Ramasamy Vs T.Ayyappa), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (MADRAS) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Receipt of information' - What the Legislature intended is the receipt of information in writing and not a mere oral information, though the words `in writing' do not find in that proviso at that context. (John Vs George Jacob), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 319 (KERALA) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summary suit for recovery of money due in respect of dishonoured cheque - The law permits the plaintiff to take out both Civil and Criminal proceedings - Both proceedings can be continued simultaneously - Both remedies are independent of each other - Thus passing of a decree will not affect the outcome of criminal trial - Similarly the conviction and grant of compensation will not prevent the Civil Court from passing decree in favour of the plaintiff. (Vijaykumar B.Agarwal Vs Govindbhai Dayal Mange & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (BOMBAY) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Cheque dishonoured Notice to the firm demanding payment - Petitioner who is a partner of the firm arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of S.141 of the Act - Contention that notice not given to the petitioner - Held, notice to the company is sufficient compliance of S.138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (A.P.) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Addressed to accused on his correct address returned unserved after waiting for seven days - P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that in all those seven days the respondent was very much in the town and he managed to send back the registered letter unserved on him - No rebuttal evidence on behalf of the accused that he was not in the town and the postal endorsement is incorrect - Held, on facts and also on law it should be deemed that the notice intimating the dishonour of cheque is served on the accused. (D.Ramaswamy Vs P.Mohan Babu & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.P.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - The Court from where the notice of demand was sent has the jurisdiction - It is obligatory on the part of the debtor to find creditor where he is. (Thapar Milk Products Vs Bharat Diary Udyog), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No evidence taken before framing charge - Held, it is not necessary that in all cases the Magistrate should take evidence before he frames the charge. (Verendra Kumar Vs M/s Sri Aashraya Makers & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (A.P.) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by firm `M/s Oswal Cotton Company' - Petitioner was former Managing Director of `M/s K.P.V.Yarns Limited' - Both the firms alleged to have business relations and cheque alleged to be issued by Oswal Company on behalf of K.P.V Yarns Limited - Section imposes a criminal liability of a person who draws the cheque and such person alone can be convicted and sentenced in those proceedings - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.K.Natrajan Vs M/s Goyal Trading Company & Ors.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H)

#14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Limitation - Payee came to know about dishonour of cheque on 20.12.1989 but written information received from bank on 6.1.1990 Period of 15 days for sending notice will commence from date of written information from the bank i.e. 6.1.1990. (John Vs George Jacob), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by unregistered partnership firm - The effect of non registration of the partnership firm under S.69 of the Partnership Act is applicable only to cases involving civil rights and it has no application to criminal cases. (Partnership Act, 1932, S.69(2). (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdurahiman), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0701 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0271 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0196 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - It is not necessary for the accused to file a petition before the Court for sending the disputed cheque for comparison by an expert - It is sufficient if the accused stated it in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdurahiman), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0701 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0271 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0196 #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and fine also imposed - Accused served the sentence but unable to deposit amount of fine - There is no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of fine - Complainant to file civil suit. (Ramnath Vs Jagdish Prasad Garg), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 43 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0610 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0229 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against several persons - Magistrate summoning some but declining to summon others - Order declining to summon - Final order - Subject to revisional jurisdiction of High Court. (Steel Authority of India, Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0040 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3372 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others - Validity - At stage of issuing process, not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case - In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned - Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable. (Steel Authority of India, Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0040 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3372 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that cheque was forged - Accused did not examine expert witness - It is permissible for Court under S.73 Evidence Act to compare the signatures. (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legal liability - Complainant made payment to third person on behalf of accused to discharge loan of accused - Accused issued cheque in favour of complainant - Cheque dishonoured - Offence under S.138 is made out against the accused - Accused is legally liable to pay the amount to complainant. (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced - Belated revision to enhance sentence not tenable. (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of complaint - Plea of petitioner that his signature on the cheque obtained by coercion - Further the petitioner issued notice to respondent to return the cheque for various reasons mentioned in the notice - Said questions have to be gone into during trial, depending upon proof - Not a ground for quashing the proceedings - Petition dismissed. (K.S.R.Prasada Rao Vs Gadey Murali Krishna & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 241 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0331 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0447 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0044 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0881 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented to payee's bank within six months but cheque presented to drawer's bank after six months - Cheque can be presented within six months either with the payee's bank or drawer's bank. (ABK Publications Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 279 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0329 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0734 : 1999(3) CRIMES 97 : 1999 CRL. LJ 2741 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice sent to partnership firm - Complaint against partnership firm and its two partners - Notice need not to be given to each and every partner - Every person who is incharge of and is responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly - No illegality in summoning the partners as it is asserted in the complaint that both the partners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Interest demanded - Demand notice not invalid merely because the interest amount has been added. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Mentioning of 15 days' time for payment is not necessary in the notice, as it is not contemplated in the Section. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - If complaint is filed before the expiry of the fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, then, the complaint would become premature and the proceedings would be vitiated. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation Starting point - The period of one month for filing the complaint has to be reckoned from the date immediately following the date on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer expired. (Jossy Kondody Vs Chacko Thomas), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0048 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0466 : 1999 (3) KLT 0207 : 1999 (2) KLJ 0646 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint registered and process issued - On complainant's absence Court dismissed complaint and discharged the accused - Order passed by Magistrate must be construed as order of acquittal under S.256(1) and not of discharge - In such case remedy is to file appeal under S.378(5). (Raja Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 369 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0353 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Interest claimed - Merely because interest is claimed, notice is not bad - Accused could have paid cheque amount only, refusing interest. (G.L.Modi & Anr. Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (A.P.) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0170 : 1998 (2) ALD (CRL.) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Unless there are allegations in the

complaint that the Directors or partners of a company or firm are also incharge and responsible for the management of the business of the company or firm they are not liable to be prosecuted. (G.L.Modi & Anr. Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (A.P.) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0170 : 1998 (2) ALD (CRL.) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Components of the offence are (1) Drawing of the cheque (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice - Complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Judicial Magistrate of First Class trying a case under S.138 cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - High Court while convicting accused in the same case cannot impose fine exceeding the said limit - However, Magistrate can resort to S.357(3) Cr.P.C. to alleviate the grievance of the complainant. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving of notice' and `Receipt of notice' - Giving of notice is not the same as receipt of notice - When notice is returned unclaimed by sender it would amount to receipt of notice - In such a case reckoning of 15 days would start running from date of return of notice. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or other liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Accused seeking production of accounts in possession of complainant - S.311 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the Court can summon any person as a witness or examine any person at any stage of the proceedings - The accused would be in a position to examine the witness only if the documents asked for in the petition are produced - Trial Court directed to permit the accused to examine the witnesses and summon the documents. (Sri Murugan Agencies Vs M/s Khaitan and Company), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0166 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0319 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post as well as Under Certificate of Posting (UPC) - Registered cover received back without any postal endorsement - Notice sent through UPC not received back - There is presumption of service under S.114 Illustration (b) of Evidence Act unless and until it is proved that the postal communication was disrupted in any manner - This is a question which is to be decided after recording evidence in the proceedings. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.114 Illustration (b). (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cognizance of offence Limitation - Period of 30 days has been prescribed for filing the complaint in Court and not for taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525

#15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Telegraphic notice sent demanding payment - Notice is valid. (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0219 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued but not within 15 days - Payment of cheque not made - Complaint not filed - Cheque again presented, dishonoured, notice issued, payment of cheque not made and complaint filed - It is not for the drawee to say that it was not a valid notice, rather it was for the drawer to say that it was not a valid notice and to get the complaint dismissed - Cause of action had accrued on non receipt of the cheque amount on service of first notice - Held, complaint is abuse of process of law as such quashed. (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0219 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not issued within 15 days - Drawee cannot say that it is not a valid notice - Rather it is for the drawer to say that it is not a valid notice and to get the complaint dismissed on this ground - A drawer can still pay the money as demanded on receipt of the notice served by the holder in due course. (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0219 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision of S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act do not violate Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. (Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19 & 21) (V.A.Noori Vs Union of India), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0051 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0664 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0038 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque and bill of exchange - Dishonour of cheque - Holder of cheque has legal right to payment of money on demand - On dishonour of cheque, it cannot be said that instrument of cheque loses its character and it becomes a bill of exchange not payable on demand. (V.A.Noori Vs Union of India), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0051 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0664 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0038 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Notice - Partnership firm - Every partner incharge and responsible for conduct of firm is guilty - Such person is presumed to have knowledge about the day to day business of the firm - Every partner need not to be given notice - Notice to firm is sufficient as no person other than the drawer of the cheque is required to be given notice. (Bhavesh Bharatbhai Mehta & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (GUJARAT) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Last line of notice reads thus 'Kindly arrange to make payment to avoid unpleasant action of my client' - High Court holding that there was no proper notice, on ground that there was no demand for money and hence quashed proceedings - Not correct - There was demand in notice - Drawer could have paid through bank or directly - Cheque could be represented demanding drawer to arrange for payment - Notice valid. (Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs M/s Saxons Farms & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0648 : 1999(2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999(2) CTC 0611 : 1999(8) SCC 221 : AIR 1999 SC 3607 : 1999 CRI LJ 4571 : 1999 SCC(CRI.) 1411 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused ordered to be put on trial - Nothing in preliminary evidence to show as to when information from Bank as to dishonour of cheque received and the date when the cheque was presented to the payee bank Trial Court dismissed the complaint - No bank official examined during preliminary evidence Complainant seeking permission to examine bank official to get information of date which is lying in obscurity - Evidence to clear this obscurity essential to be examined - Impugned order passed by Magistrate dismissing complaint set aside. (M/s Kapoor Brothers Roller Floor Mills Vs M/s Jyoti Solvex and Refinery (P) Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0609 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0382 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0484 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by

Managing Director of Company - No allegations in the complaint that Directors of the Company were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the alleged commission of the offence - Vague allegations that cheques were issued with consent, knowledge and connivance of Directors - Cannot be said that Directors were actually incharge and responsible for conduct of business - Proceedings against Directors - Liable to be quashed. (P.Ravinder Reddy Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (A.P.) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0764 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0326 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0004 #24: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Sleeping partner - Nothing on record to suggest that such partner was incharge of the business of the company or was in any manner responsible for the conduct of business of company and there is no evidence to show that such partner was responsible in any manner for the alleged offence - No ground to proceed against such partner. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - In the complaint it is not alleged that accused 2 and 3 continued to be in service of the company - Not stated that they were in any manner engaged in the administration and management of the company - There is nothing in the complaint in rope in the 2nd accused. (M.Inbarajan & Anr. Vs Baladhandapani), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (MADRAS) #2: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing Contention of petitioner that payments were made towards the amount payable under cheques - Held, it would be for the trial Court to decide the question of payment at appropriate stage in accordance with law - Proceedings pending in trial Court cannot be quashed on this basis. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525 #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice not issued within 15 days of the receipt of information from the Bank and drawer not afforded an opportunity to make payment of the cheque - Continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. (Ganesh Das Vs Narendra Kumar), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (RAJASTHAN) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0024 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0755 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0115 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3362 #4: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Presented to collecting bank on the last day of six months - Reached paying bank late by 4 days i.e. after six months period was over Cheque became a stale cheque - Cheque is required to be presented at paying bank within six months or period of validity which is earlier - Complaint quashed, petitioner discharged. (Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati Vs Jayaben Prahladbhai), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 649 (GUJARAT) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0526 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0627 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0460 : 1999 (3) GLR 2096 : 1999(3) CRIMES 252 : 2000 CRI LJ 1152 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insufficient funds - Proof It is sufficient to summon a copy of the relevant account - Unnecessary summoning of Bank Managers deprecated. (Kamalam Vs State of Kerala), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 679 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0365 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0005 : 1999 (3) KLT 0499 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Neither unserved postal cover nor acknowledgment received back by sender - A copy of statutory notice

filed alongwith the complaint - Presumption is that the notice is deemed to have been served but it is a rebuttable presumption - Complaint cannot be quashed for want of notice at this stage. (G.S.Srikanth & Ors. Vs M/s Sri Lakshmi Financiers & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (A.P.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0215 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0238 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0782 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0411 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0321 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0329 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Request to present the cheque once again - Cheque represented - Cheque again dishonoured - Second notice returned with an endorsement 'always absent' - Cause of action has arisen only on the first notice. (M/s Abraham Chacko & Co. Vs Kalleppuram Metals), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Pleading - Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability - Held, if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued - Subsequently complainant agreed to receive the amount in instalments - Dishonour of cheque - Held, no offence is made out under S.138 of the Act as subsequent agreement replaced the cheque. (Voruganti China Gopaiah Vs M/s Godavari Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0201 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - An undated cheque handed over as security for the purpose of the contract - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of S.138 does not apply - There was no debt or liability when cheque was handed over to the drawee. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - Means a legally enforceable debt or liability. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Information received from Bank on 9.3.1994 and on the same day notice issued - Drawer of the cheque can make payment within a period of 15 days from date of service of notice - Drawer failed to make payment upto 25.3.1994 - Cause of action accrued to drawee on 25.3.1994 - Complaint filed on 25.4.1994 - Held, complaint is within limitation. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn by company - No notice as required given to company - Notice given to Director of the Company - Complaint under section 138 against company is not maintainable - However, it cannot be said that as complaint against company for want of notice is not maintainable as such complaint against Director is also not maintainable. (P.Rajarathinam Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 166 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0132 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0514 : 1999 (5) BCR 0308 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Non appearance of complainant Dismissal of complaint - Absence of petitioner neither deliberate nor wilful - Order of Magistrate set aside - Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, but cannot exercise this power in disposal oriented spirit and disposal oriented statistics. (Kumaresan Vs Girirajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0014 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant absent - Complaint dismissed in default at early hours - Order of dismissal set aside - Magistrate ought to have waited for the

complainant. (Anil Bassi Vs Vishnu Dass), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0838 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of limitation - Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on 15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Condonation of delay - Complaint not filed within prescribed period - Delay cannot be condoned u/s 5 of Limitation Act or S.473 Cr.P.C. Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Law which prescribes a special procedure and limitation. (Shri Vishnu Spinners Vs Sri Bhagyalakshmi Commercial Corporation), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0192 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0516 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0187 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.5, 000/- ordered to be paid to the complainant - Sessions Judge ordered the release of accused on Probation - Fine converted into Prosecution expenses as the P.P. had also appeared - High Court modified order and Fine ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. (Betco Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0448 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence under S.138 is not a cognizable offence - Police has no right to intervene so far as this offence is concerned. (Betco Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0448 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Notice - Sent by Fax - It amounts to compliance with the legal requirement - Time limit for filing complaint would start running on the date when the notice sent by Fax reaches the drawer of the cheque. (M/s SIL Import, USA Vs M/s Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 493 (S.C.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0432 : 1999(2) CTC 0354 : 1999(4) SCC 567 : 1999(2) REC CRI R 658 : (1999) 38 ALL CRI C 858 : AIR 1999 SC 1609 : 1999(2) KLT 275 #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that cheque was not issued by him - This is purely a question of fact - No ground to quash the proceedings. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #22: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 30 days notice demanding payment instead of 15 days - Notice is not invalid - It is open for a party to given more time. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #23: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legal liability - Debt due to father - Cheque given in favour of son - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 is made out. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Accused No.2 is the Director, Accused No.3 is the Managing Director and Accused No.4 is an Executive Director of the Company - It is stated in the complaint that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the accused Nos.2 to 4 - Held, it is sufficient to make an allegation in the

complaint with regard to the liability of the accused - Whether they are actually liable or not will have to be considered through evidence. (Girish K.Bhandari & Anr. Vs Lakshmi Finance & Industrial Corp. Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0029 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0460 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Failure to mention the names of the witnesses and the place and date of transaction in the complaint - Not fatal. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.204(2). (Augusty Vs Rajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (KERALA) : 1999(4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0600 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0450 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Under S.138 of the Act no mode is prescribed for service of notice - It is sufficient that the notice is served on the accused - In the instant case complainant stating that notice sent as per registered post as well as through certificate of posting and notice sent as per certificate of posting received by the accused - This is a question of fact whether the notice has been received by the accused or not - On this ground complaint cannot be quashed. (Y.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr. Vs A.V.Aruna Devi & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0671 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0581 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheques issued in discharge of a liability i.e. payment of monthly rentals - Cheques dishonoured for want of sufficient funds - Complaint cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is a civil dispute. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.P.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0152 #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Accused convicted Appeal dismissed - Dispute settled during the pendency of Revision and payment made - Parties requested for compounding of offence - Held, in the absence of any contrary provision in the facts and circumstances of the present case there cannot be any bar for granting permission to compound the offence in the interest of substantial justice between the parties. (Naimesh P.Pandya Vs State of Gujarat), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (GUJARAT) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Person in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the company at relevant time - Such allegation made in the complaint - Question whether he had ceased to be such a person or whether he was never associated with the company in such a capacity are questions of fact which have to be decided during the trial. (N.Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Vs M/s Allwyn a unit of Voltas Ltd.,), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0744 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0357 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Chitty transaction - Cheque issued by accused in discharge of his liability in Chitty transaction - Chitty conducted by complainant in contravention of Chitties Act - Dishonour of cheque - Accused is liable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Chitties Act only penalises the foreman who conducts the Chitty in contravention of Chitties Act - The Act does not declare the transaction illegal or unlawful or opposed to public policy. (A.N.Nadarajan Vs K.G.Nadarajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 428 (KERALA) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0243 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1999 (1) KLJ 0660 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - In drafting a criminal complaint, there is no specific provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code, or in the rules framed thereunder as to how a criminal complaint has to be drafted - All that is to be seen in the Criminal complaint is whether the entire substance of the complaint prima facie, makes out an offence said to have been committed, or whether there is a ground to presume in the entire reading of the substance of the complaint that the offence is likely to have been committed. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Refer to drawer' - This indicates that there were insufficient funds in the account of drawer - Section 138 is attracted. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder of cheque describing himself as holder in due course in the complaint - No advantage to be given to the accused on this misdescription. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL

INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20, 000/- - Complainant did not file civil suit for recovery of amount Held, out of Rs.20, 000/- a sum of Rs.15, 000/- to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.357) (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Contract in pursuance of which cheque issued in dispute - That dispute to be settled by Civil Court quite different from criminal liability - Offence u/s 138 relates only to the dishonour of cheque and negligence to pay the amount of the cheque upon a subsequent statutory notice. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Offence is made out - Not necessary that bank account should be alive at the time of presentation of cheque. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Not sufficient funds in the account - Does not absolve its liability for the offence under S.138 of the Act. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.P.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0152 #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of five cheque - One notice issued in respect of all the five cheques and one complaint filed - In terms of the provision under Section 219(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months from the first to the last of such offences may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three - As there was only one statutory notice to enforce payment of the amount covered by those five cheque as such the contention of the accused that one trial court not be held, repelled. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - When drawer of cheque stops payment by giving intimation to the Bank, action can be initiated under S.138 of the Act. (George Vs Muhammed), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2) KERALA 0833 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - It becomes a cheque on the date which is written on the said cheque and six months period has to be reckoned for the purpose of Section 138 of the Act from the said date. (Y.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr. Vs A.V.Aruna Devi & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0671 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0581 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Dishonour of cheque - It is an offence u/s 138 of the Act - Closure of the account would be an eventuality after the entire amount in the account is withdrawn - It means that there was no amount in the credit of 'that account' on the relevant date when the cheque was presented for honouring the same. (NEPC Micon Ltd. & Ors. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 624 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0648 : 1999 (2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999 (2) CTC 0347 : AIR 1999 SC 1952 : 1999(4) SCC 253 : 1999 CRI LJ 2883 : 1999(16) OCR 639 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767

#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses - Absence of complainant, witnesses and his counsel - Complaint dismissed - Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on merits - Appeal against - No criminal appeal lies against such an order - Even if it is construed as a revision, no second revision lies after the dismissal of the first one. (B.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses - Absence of complainant, witnesses and his counsel - Complaint dismissed - Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on merits - Appeal against - No appeal lies against such an order - Even if it is construed as an appeal against order of acquittal by Magistrate, it is not maintainable as it is filed beyond period of 60 days from the date of impugned order as no application has been filed u/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in preferring appeal. (B.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses - Complainant, witnesses and his counsel absent - Matter kept pending till 4 p.m. - Acquittal of accused in such circumstances by Magistrate - Sustainable. (B.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf - Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband - Held, authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney - Complaint not property instituted, hence quashed. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Loan taken by mother - Son issuing cheques in discharge of legal liability of his mother - Cheques dishonoured - Son becomes liable and amount is legally enforceable debt - Prima facie case against son is made out - No ground to quash the complaint. (G.N.Gurappa Reddy Vs M/s A.S.Finance and Investments), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0026 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0637 #23: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Parties entered into hire purchase agreement at Chennai and post-dated cheques issued at Chennai - Drawee company having its Head Office at Calcutta - Notice demanding payment issued at Calcutta - Held, Calcutta Court has jurisdiction - Prosecution at Calcutta validly launched - Debtor should follow the creditor. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of S.139, a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in S.138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender & Ors.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Court within whose jurisdiction the

cheque is presented has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. (Varghese Vs C.K.Ramani), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2755 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued with consent of directors of Company - Cheque dishonoured - Prima facie offence against directors is made out No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea that complaint did not disclose that accused were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. (K.Subramanian & Ors. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0660 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - All the ingredients of offence need not to be stated in the complaint if factual foundation of the offence has been laid down - Not necessary that a complainant should reproduce in verbatim all ingredients. (K.Subramanian & Ors. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0660 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made before cheque presented in bank - Cheque of full amount presented - Cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 - It would have been another case if at least accused had an amount which was payable after part payment. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T.C.I. Finance Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0055 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0674 ; 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR 130 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence by company - Conviction of accused There is no question of convicting the company - Substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside - Heavy fine reduced to Rs.10, 000/-. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T.C.I. Finance Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0055 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0674 ; 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR 130 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Contention that payment had been made - As per complainant only part payment is received - Disputed question of fact involved to be decided by trial Court - No ground to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Agarwal Auto Traders Vs M/s Globe Tractors (Agencies)), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 22 (P&H) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act through Manager - Complaint as filed not open to challenge - Proof of authorisation only at the time of trial. (Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 27 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0466 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0538 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 1032 : 1999 (5) BCR 0018 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0805 #8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed - Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138 on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company - Company going under liquidation - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Managing Director as also against the Company - Provisions of S.446 of Companies Act are not applicable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Proceedings not to be transferred to Company Court under S.446 of Companies Act. (Companies Act, 1956, S.446) (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (KERALA) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0266 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4095 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Acquittal Appeal against - Where order of acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds and passed by totally ignoring acceptable evidence on record, High Court is justified in reversing such order of

acquittal - Sentencing is a matter of Court's discretion - Where sentence of fine of appropriate amount would serve ends of justice, High Court can dispense with sentence of imprisonment, which could be made only default sentence. (M/s Metalloy-N-Steel Corporation, Bangalore Vs M.A.Sridhara), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 133 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0142 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0191 : 1998(4) KAR LJ 717 : ILR 1998 KAR 402 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Does not arise till expiry of 15 days period on service of notice to drawer. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #12: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Cost of notice also demanded - Notice is not valid - Complaint not maintainable - Drawee can make demand of cheque amount only and nothing more - If complaint is filed for any amount other than the cheque amount the case under section 138 of the Act does not lie. (United Credit Ltd. Vs M/s Agro Sales India), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (CALCUTTA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Service of notice and opportunity to meet with liability within 15 days of receipt of intimation is an integral part of commission of offence. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dispensing with personal attendance of accused - Where warrant of arrest has been issued against accused, S.205 Cr.P.C. does not apply and his personal appearance cannot be exempted - In the instant case, warrant of arrest issued by CJM converted into bailable warrant by High Court - Further direction issued that if accused appears and submits bail bond before CJM, he shall be granted exemption u/s 317 and his appearance shall not be insisted upon during trial. (Ajay Lunia Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0577 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0449 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Court having no jurisdiction - Complaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court instead of ordering acquittal. (Varghese Vs C.K.Ramani), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2755 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice issued - Reply to notice sent that there is amount available in the account and appellant can represent the cheque and encash the same Not sufficient - It is debtor's duty to discharge the debt - Intimation of deposit not sufficient Offence is made out and fine of Rs.10, 000/- imposed. (Varghese Vs C.K.Ramani), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2755 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Effect of S.22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on a proceeding initiated under S.138 - S.22(1) does not take within its sweep the criminal prosecution against the company. (Raghunath Cotton & Oil Products Ltd. Vs Ramarao Cotton Company), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (A.P.) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0522 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0251 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0055 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director - Criminal proceedings against the Company and against the Managing Director and two directors - Charge sought to be quashed by the two Directors - No averment in the complaint or preliminary evidence that both the Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and offence was committed by them - Charge against the two directors quashed. (Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra Vs M/s N.K.Metals), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (DELHI) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0287 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0368 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0181 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4383 : (1998)75 DLT 155 #19: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not served upon the drawer within fifteen days of the receipt of information from Bank with regard to dishonour of cheque -

Complaint is not maintainable being barred by Sub-section (b) of S.138 of the act. (Mahabir Prasad Bagrodia Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0327 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0136 : 1998 (3) BLJ 0351 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Instructions given by the drawer to the Bank to stop payment as accounts had not been reconciled with the drawee Cheque presented and dishonoured - Drawee is guilty of offence under S.138. (Sukhinder Singh Vs S.R.Chaudhary), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0279 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petition to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Dismissed by High Court - Petitioner can move the trial Court under S.245 Cr.P.C.and raise all the pleas except the one taken before High Court. (Sukhinder Singh Vs S.R.Chaudhary), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0279 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Cheque presented thrice and each time notice issued - Complaint filed on the basis of third dishonour Complaint can be filed on the basis of fresh cause of action, which accrues for a second or third time, as the case may be - Held, complaint filed is within limitation. (M/s Rama Bangia Vs M/s Pushpa Builders Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (DELHI) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0374 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1988 CRL. L.J. 4385 #23: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued, presented, dishonoured and intimation of dishonour received at Bhilai - Complaint filed at Raipur where the complainant had its principal office - Offence ripening only on failure to pay the amount Amount payable at the place of complainant - Held, Court at Raipur has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Hindustan Mills and Electricals Stores Vs Kedia Castle Delan Industries Ltd. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (M.P.) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0082 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0619 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0307 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0391 : 1999 (2) CCR 0605 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0325 #24: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at a place where the cheque was issued and drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money - It also arises at a place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located or a place where the cheque was issued or delivered. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued at `Pune' where the transaction took place - Cheque deposited for realisation at Pune where company had its sale office - Notice issued from Bombay where the company has its registered office - Court at Bombay within whose jurisdiction notice u/s 142 making demand for payment was made had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed for default for non appearance - Order recalled on the same day when complainant appeared Order of recall set aside as Magistrate cannot recall his order. (Harish Chander Vs Kanti Lal Virchand Vora), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 555 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0128 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0363 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0137 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0410 : 1999 (5) BCR 0123 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0576 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of amount of cheque and interest accrued thereon - Notice is not vague. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Place where the cheque was given or handed over is relevant and the Courts within that area will have territorial jurisdiction. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Magistrate summoning the

accused without applying his mind - It is a ground to quash the proceedings. (Secunderabad Health Care Ltd. Vs Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director Cheque dishonoured - Prosecution against Managing Director and five other directors - No averment in the complaint or even in sworn statement of complainant that the said directors were responsible to the company for conduct of business and they were aware of the issue of cheque - Prosecution against the five directors quashed. (Secunderabad Health Care Ltd. Vs Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 25-- - Cheque period expiring on a public holiday Cheque shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Managing Director without prosecuting Company Complaint is maintainable. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #8: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post, within time and at the correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement `Garage was closed' - Held, it is due compliance of statutory requirement. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured by bank on 10.5.1995 Notice sent to drawer on 23.5.1995 - Held, it is sufficient compliance of statutory requirement as notice was sent within 15 days of dishonour. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice sent on 23.5.1995 - `Garage of drawer found closed' and postal endorsement dt.31.5.1995 - Complaint filed on 9.6.1995 - Complainant examined on 7.9.1995 - Quashing of complaint on ground that it was premature, not justified Magistrate was fully competent to take cognizance after the expiry of 15 days. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre-mature complaint - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days - Magistrate can take cognizance after expiry of 15 days of notice. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of payment of cheque - Not necessary to mention amount of dishonoured cheque - Amount of cheque can safely be presumed to be known to drawer. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque due to structural defects i.e. any defect in its form, want of signature, date not properly written, figure of the amount has been overwritten or erasures in the drawer's name etc. - S.138 is not attracted - This section is also not attracted if drawer refuses to replace the cheque. (Babulal Nainmal Jain Vs Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0005 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0339 : 1998(3) MAH LJ 0762 : 1998(4) ALLMR 0287 : 1998 CRI LJ 4750 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused appeared in pursuance to the summons - There is no need to call upon the accused to furnish security for his enlargement. (K.Pandarinathan Vs V.Raju), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (KARNATAKA)

#15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - On a cheque being dishonoured once, if the payee is asked to present the cheque again, and still the cheque is not cashed then the payee would be entitled to give to the drawer of cheque a notice under Section 138 after the subsequent presentation of cheque and the limitation would start running not from the date when the cheque was dishonoured for the first time but from the date it was dishonoured subsequently. (M/s Nagdev Sons Vs State of U.P.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) (D.B.) 0392 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0151 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0483 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0201 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0518 : 1999 (1) CCR 0064 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at a place where the cheque was drawn, or a place where the cheque was presented, or a place where the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period and at a place where the drawer failed to make the payment. (Sanjai Makkar & Ors. Vs Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (Haryana) & Ors.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0666 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0528 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0493 : 1999 (2) CCR 0567 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice to company is sufficient compliance - No separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint, before initiating proceedings under the Act. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A.P.) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Four cheques - Composite notice to complainant for all the four cheques - Not prohibited under S.138 of the Act when parties are same and when cheques are bounced on the same day - No prejudice is caused to accused by issuing such a notice - Complaint not liable to be quashed. (Hindustan Power Controls Vs Swarna Systems), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0028 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0213 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0622 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Giving the date of cause of action in the complaint is not mandatory - Date of service of notice is a question of fact which can be decided only after recording evidence. (Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0268 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0525 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Closure of account' - Dishonour of cheque on account of closure of account before or after issuing a cheque - It means insufficiency of funds Offence u/s 138 is committed. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Notice given on 26.3.1998 Cause of action arose on 11.4.1998 - Complaint filed on 8.5.1998 - Not barred by limitation. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - No averment in complaint that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability - Provisions of S.138 not attracted and complaint is not maintainable - No averment attracting provisions of S.420 IPC and even if there is any such averment offence thereunder unsustainable - Complaint quashed. (Vempati Balaji & Ors. Vs D.Vijaya Gopala Reddi & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0064 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0184 #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - Complaint filed on 13th day from date of refusal to receive notice - In case of refusal to receive notice date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice - If the complaint is filed before expiry of the period of 15 days as provided in Clause (c) to the proviso of S.138 then cognizance of the offence cannot be taken - Order of cognizance quashed. (Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (ORISSA)

#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in the default - Preliminary evidence recorded and case fixed for arguments - Complainant not appearing - Magistrate not to dismiss the complaint in default but should consider the evidence and pass an order either to summon the accused or dismiss it on merits. (Ajay Khurana Vs M/s Anil Cloth House), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0391 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0232 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0196 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 92, 138-- - A firm having current account with a Bank Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm - Cheques subsequently dishonoured/lost - Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm - Firm lost its remedy to recover the amount from owner - Action of bank not lawful. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director Held, without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or liability - Post dated cheque - On the date of issuing cheque there was no existing enforceable debt or liability - No offence. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partners - No allegation that respondents No.3 & 4 were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help the complainant - If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No.3 & 4 - Held, Magistrate is not right in summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes of law. (Tara Chand & Ors. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Should be filed within one month from the date of accrual of cause of action - S.5 Limitation Act is not applicable. (K.Devadas Shetty Vs Dr.J.R.Pais), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0665 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0161 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0192 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0605 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0286 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0290 : 1998 (2) CCR 0080 : ILR 1997 KANT 2883 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0037 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Civil and criminal liability It is open to the aggrieved party to resort to either of the two or both - Pendency of dispute before civil Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to take cognizance of offence and issue process pursuant thereto. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT) #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice served on 1.9.1992 - Complaint filed on 16.9.1992 - Held, complaint is not premature. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat), 1998(3)

CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT) #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times during period of its validity - Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice - Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right - Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s 138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Account closed prior to the date written on the cheque - Offence is committed - In the instant case cheque drawn on 5.9.1990 bearing the date 5.1.1991 - Account closed on 17.12.90 - Cheque presented for collection and dishonoured on account of `Account closed' - Held, provisions of S.138 are attracted. (Krishnan Nair Vs Jaseentha), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0205 #11: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Signatures do not tally' - Cheque dishonored Complaint - Order of Sessions Court quashing complaint set aside. (Devendra Singh Vs Varinder Singh), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (M.P.) : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0373 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0332 : 1998(2) MPWN 60 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Payment demanded within 7 days Notice not invalid - Mentioning of period more or less than 15 days - No prejudice is caused to accused. (Satyavan Chaplot Vs Rajendra), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 31 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0464 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0740 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2309 : 1999 (1) CCR 0292 : 1998 (2) RLW 1139 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay - Condonation - Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 - Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter - Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred - Provisions of Ss.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. (C.Kalegouda Vs K.Sadashivappa), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0086 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stay of complaint pending civil proceedings Agreement between complainant and accused - Accused issuing a cheque in pursuance of the agreement - Cheque dishonoured - Criminal complaint under Section 138 - Dispute over the agreement also pending in the civil Court - Proceedings in Criminal complaint cannot be stayed. (Virander Kumar Sachdeva Vs Vijay Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 504 (P&H) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0070 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0460 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Treasury Savings Bank cheque having validity of three months - Cheque has to be presented within the validity period - Cheque presented beyond three months and within six months is not valid. (Kesavan Thankappan Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0340 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0066 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0265 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0574 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0102 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0714 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.)

0202 : 1998 (2) KLT 0001 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant - Magistrate can accept the complaint. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0064 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offer to make payment - Held, once the offence is committed and merely by making the payment will not put an end to the same - It may effect the gravity of the offence. (Balwinder Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0647 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0399 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0380 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Additional evidence - To prove the date on which statutory notice was served - Notice sent on 6.10.1995 - Complainant alleging that after filing of the notice with the complaint the accused has tampered with the judicial record and has written date of receipt of notice as 31.10.1995 on the A.D. receipt which was not there earlier when she filed this document alongwith her complaint - Opportunity given to prove by examining official witnesses from the Post Office as to on which date this notice was served on the accused. (Harmaljit Kaur Vs Swaran Seth), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 410 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0367 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0406 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0265 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Returned with postal endorsement 'Addressee out of station, hence returned' - Postman had gone to the residence of the respondent on 5 occasions and on all these 5 occasions the respondent was out of station - Not a valid service - Complaint dismissed - Appeal against - Held, as it was open to the complainant to examine the postman or the neighbours to belie the postal endorsement, as such it is not open at this stage to give an opportunity to fortify the postal endorsement - Appeal dismissed. (Jaya Chandran Vs Baburaj), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 455 (KERALA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0525 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0544 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0826 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0250 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3671 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Genuineness of cheque - Trial Court to decide factual controversy - High Court will not interfere u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (M/s Shivalik Fibres Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Punjab), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (P&H) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0648 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0634 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0254 : 1998 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0129 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0652 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Company - Cheque issued by a Director of the Company on behalf of the Company - Cheque dishonoured - Notice demanding payment issued to the Director who issued the cheque - Notice not required to be issued to other directors of the Company. (M/s Shivalik Fibres Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Punjab), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (P&H) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0648 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0634 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0254 : 1998 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0129 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0652 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Limitation to present - Limitation to present cheque starts from the date which is found in the cheque - Contention that date 17.11.1994 which is written on the cheque should be excluded - Contention not tenable. (Muhammed Kunhi Vs Janardhanan), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0674 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Month' employed in the Act covers only British Calendar month and not the lunar month. (Muhammed Kunhi Vs Janardhanan), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0674 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque whether genuine or forged - To be decided by criminal Court. (Virander Kumar Sachdeva Vs Vijay Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 504 (P&H) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0070 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0460 #25: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post at correct residential address - Notice received back with postal endorsement `Not found' - Held, it can only be attributed to addressee's own conduct - Cognizance validly taken by trial Court. (Pawan

Kumar Vs Shakuntala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (RAJASTHAN) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0407 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0533 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0409 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0120 : 1998 (1) CCR 0111 : 1998 (2) RLW 0798 : 1998 (2) WLC (RAJ) 0304 #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cognizance of offence - Can be taken if (i) complaint is made in writing by the payee or the `holder in due course' of the cheque; (ii) such complaint is made within one month of the date of which the cause of action as contemplated under clause (c) of the proviso to S.138 arises and (iii) a metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate first class shall try the offence punishable under S.138. (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - When an offence is committed, subsequent order appointing a provisional liquidator or order winding up the Company can have no bearing on the proceedings under S.138. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - If after notice payment has not been made by a Company merely on the ground that a petition for its winding up has been presented, it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S.138. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - There is no conflict between S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments and S.536(2) read with S.441(2) of the Companies Act as they operate in separate fields. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second revision - Dishonour of cheque - Revision against the charges under S.397(3) Cr.P.C. - Sessions Judge dismissed the revision - Second revision before High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. (K.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2) CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI.) 71 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Six cheques of different dates - On request of accused all six cheques presented on one date - All the cheques dishonoured - Offence relates to single transaction - Accused to be tried at one trial. (K.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2) CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI.) 71 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by Company - Prosecution against Company and its Directors - Permission of Company Court under Section 441 of Companies Act is not required. (Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Vs Kanosika Laboratories Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 56 6 (A.P.) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - If the partnership firm fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time, after receipt of notice, the partners are also liable to be prosecuted. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Notice - When firm has been served with a notice each partner need not be served with a separate notice individually. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Service shall be deemed to be effected unless contrary is proved. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.)

0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Received back with postal endorsement 'always absent in my duty' - If accused were not available at their place of business and their establishment remains closed during working hours, it will be deemed that notice was served on them. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Mere presentation of petition for winding up doe not render transactions/dispositions undertaken during the period the petition is pending void ab initio - If the Company or its Directors do not make payment of cheques on the ground that the petition for winding up has been presented, it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - Date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice - Period of 15 days is to be computed from the date of refusal. (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Once the limitation to file complaint starts to run it cannot stop for any reason, and if complaint is not lodged before limitation runs out, no complaint can be lodged thereafter. (Y.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D.B.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act prevail over the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who signed the cheque - Company going into liquidation Company discharged - Directors who signed the cheque cannot escape the criminal liability Protection of S.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Sleeping director - Cannot be prosecuted - Onus is on the complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner - Proceedings against the petitioner quashed. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (CALCUTTA) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Magistrate has to take cognizance before proceeding to record sworn statements of complainant and his witnesses - Taking of cognizance after examination of complainant is impermissible in law and it would vitiate the entire proceedings. (K.S.Mallikarjuna Prasanna Vs M/s Leo Earth Movers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0184 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0506 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop Payment' - After issuance of a cheque, subsequent notice by drawer to the drawee or the Bank for stoppage of payment does not preclude action under S.138 by the drawee or holder in due course. 1996(1) Civil CC 309 (SC) : 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 99 (S.C.) & 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 555 (S.C.) overruled. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S.C.) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL.) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198

#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No sufficient funds in account on the date of issuance of cheque - Funds made available when cheque was presented - There is no presumption of dishonesty - S.138 gets attracted only when cheque is dishonoured. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S.C.) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL.) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability - This question is a matter of evidence - Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground of non compliance with provision regarding notice - Plea accepted by trial Court - Order set aside - It was incumbent on the Magistrate to afford sufficient opportunity to the complainant. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed u/s 138 - Accused alleging cheques stolen and signatures forged - No finding given on this aspect so far - Until the Magistrate decides the said allegations of forgery on evidence adduced by both parties, it cannot be held that those documents are really forged - Until then, contempt proceedings not maintainable. (M/s Jaju & Co. Vs Shanta Devi Dhoot), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (A.P.) : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0049 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0200 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0393 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law - Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - There was in fact no balance when cheque was issued - Conviction of accused u/s 138 upheld. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal to accept on 26.5.1990 - Notice to the respondent can be imputed only on 26.5.1990, the date of refusal of the notice Complaint filed on 2.6.1990 - Held, complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice is not maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Question raised is whether notice of demand for payment issued by payee, is time barred or not - Held, it is a question of fact which has to be decided by trial Magistrate - Bar against revision under Section 397 cannot be defeated by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. (Y.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D.B.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Notice to firm only - Complaint filed against partnership firm as well as against partners who are alleged to be incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Held, notice is not required to be issued to all the partners - Notice issued to the firm is sufficient compliance. (Suraj Theatre Vs Kakaria

Bhorathe), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0370 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0347 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0344 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0496 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0043 #4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of amount of cheque and amount of incidental charges - Both amounts indicated separately - Held, notice is valid - If any extra amount is claimed in the notice that would not vitiate the notice. (Ajay Kumar Churiwal Vs Suman Sethi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 219 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0507 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0016 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0697 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0345 : 1998 (3) CCR 0592 : 1998 CCLR 0287 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque - Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course - Under Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Bearer cheque - Issued in favour of the appellant but the same was sent for collection through his friend - Cheque contained no endorsement to this effect - Held, a bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment, has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Intimation by drawer to payee or the holder in due course thereafter that sufficient amount is available in the bank to honour the cheque - Does not absolve him from his liability to pay the amount. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - If the Court comes to a finding that it has no jurisdiction to try the case, it is not at all justified in finding the respondent not guilty and acquitting her - In case Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence complaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #10: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint filed in the name of Company through Administrative manager who has signed the complaint - No special authority is required - Question of authorisation arises only if the complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice issued to company Company not made an accused - Complaint filed against directors only - Directors even if not alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well be supplied at the trial by adducing evidence - Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of the Act is a matter of evidence - It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the company alone and no notice was issued to the directors thereof - Further it is also a matter of evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a notice to the directors of the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would matter - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (T.P.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.),

1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Does not arise merely on the cheque being dishonoured - It arises only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. (Y.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D.B.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Registered notice - If the letter is sent by post pre-paid and properly addressed and posted by registered post to addressee - Addressee can be imputed with the knowledge of contents of notice. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Witness when not cited in the list of witnesses Court can allow such witness to be examined under S.311 Cr.P.C. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Specifying seven days period to make payment- Notice is not invalid as the respondent is entitled to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of this notice. (Ravinder Kumar Vs Sohan Lal), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0428 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0753 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0582 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0511 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0531 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0328 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3273 : 1998 (4) CCR 0794 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0071 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 118(1)-- - Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument - Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 9-- - A bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party - Presentation of the cash cheque not by the complainant but by another person - It is of no consequence. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legally enforceable liability - Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability - Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused - Held, accused cannot be punished under S.138 of the Act. (A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2)

CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued for Rs.10, 000/- towards part payment out of a liability of Rs.44117/- Thereafter draft for Rs.5500/- paid - Cheque presented and dishonoured - Complaint filed - Thereafter cash amount of Rs.5, 000/- made - Held, even after the adjustment of these two amounts, still the accused is liable to pay nearly an amount of Rs.34, 000/- Hence, as long as there is legally enforceable liability either on the date of issuance of the cheque or on the date of encashment of the cheque, the complainant is entitled to encash the cheque issued by the accused - Order of acquittal passed by Magistrate set aside. (Padmaja Marketing Enterprises Vs V.S.R.Murthy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 684 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0412 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0284 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0106 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0881 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0245 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0814 : 1998 (36) BANK LJ 0077 : 1997 (2) LS AP 0020 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Company includes firm Prosecution can be launched either against company alone, or person in charge of affairs of company alone, or both together - Firm when prosecuted alongwith partner who had signed the cheque - Held, there is no irregularity. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cognizance of offence - Magistrate who has received complaint of offence is deemed to have already taken cognizance of offence when he proceeds to record sworn statement of complainant. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party Cheque dishonoured - Complaint filed by original payee - Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. (H.L.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0678 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses when not given to accused - It is always open to the accused to approach the Trial Court and insist for the list of witnesses Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground alone. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed by Company through authorised representative - Said authorised representative left the service of the company - Held, there is nothing wrong in substituting a fresh Power of Attorney or representative of the company in the place of previous Power of Attorney or representative. (Benhur T&I Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 341 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0184 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0611 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0296 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0336 : 1997 (2) KLT 0985 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Cheque amount claimed within less than fifteen days - Held, by itself is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if complaint is made within one month after expiry of fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by drawer - Payee need not specifically mention in the notice to pay the amount within fifteen days - The only requirement is that drawer has to wait for fifteen days after receipt of notice by drawer before filing complaint for non-payment of the amount payable under the cheque. (K.Muralidhar Rao Vs State of A.P.), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (A.P.) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0325 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0151 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0290 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0748 : 1998 (1) CCR 0171 : 1997 (6) ANDH LT 0079 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0399 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0521 : 1997 (25) CRI LT 0144 : 1998 (91) COM CAS 0723 : 1998 (1) CUR CRI R 0080 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by attorney - His prosecution is unwarranted. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times within the period of validity of cheque - Cause of action for complaint would arise only when pursuant to the dishonour of the cheque notice was issued and the drawer of the cheque failed to make payment. (M.Sharma and Co. Vs S.K.Soni alias Satish Kumar Soni), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 431 (P&H) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0257 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0809 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0535 : 1998 (2) CCR 0259 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partner - Proceedings cannot be initiated against every partner of the firm - Every person who was in charge and responsible for the affairs and conduct of the business of the company or firm at the time when the alleged offence was committed, is also liable for prosecution along with the company. (B.Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal Services & Transporters), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 454 (A.P.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0383 : 1998 (2) CCR 0677 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Magistrate can drop the proceedings if after appearance of accused no evidence is found against the accused. (B.Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal Services & Transporters), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 454 (A.P.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0383 : 1998 (2) CCR 0677 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made - Is of no avail to the drawer of the cheque for evading prosecution. (Vandana Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0553 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ 0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 : 1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0147 #11: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made or that the cheque is for discharge of liability or debt - These are questions of fact which trial Court has to decide after recording evidence - No ground to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Vandana Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0553 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ 0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 : 1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0147 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses - Though the wording of S.204(2) Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, it is only in the nature of directory and nonfurnishing of list of witnesses is only an irregularity which can be cured under Section 465 Criminal Procedure Code. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Company - No Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the Company till the end of the proceedings. (Associated Cement Co.Ltd. Vs Keshvanand), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 238 (S.C.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 : 1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998 SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 : 1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR.) 309 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of the offence - Nothing in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - Complaint qua petitioners quashed. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused producing receipt showing payment - Contention of complainant that receipt is forged - Enquiry by Court under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. initiated - Proceedings under Section 138 cannot be stayed pending enquiry Scope of both the proceedings is different. (M/s M.S.Shoes East Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused producing receipt showing payment - Contention of complainant that receipt is forged - Application for initiating proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. - During the enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. the only point for consideration would be whether there is prima facie material to proceed against the person concerned - Even during the enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. the question of genuineness or otherwise of the document in question would not be finally adjudicated. (M/s M.S.Shoes East Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque and Bank's memo returned to drawer Contention of accused that he paid the amount - Trial Court has to consider the effect of return of dishonoured cheque to accused - In the instant case complaint quashed. (Narender Anand & Ors. Vs M/s Maruti Udyog Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (DELHI) : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0036 : 1997 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0376 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0759 #18: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - 15 days period - First day of receipt of notice has to be excluded. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3751 #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque given by merely signing it Accused has written name of the payee and the figure - Does not amount to any criminal offence. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409, 420 & 463 etc. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself - Quashment of counter complaint sought - Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding - Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law Proceedings of counter complaint quashed. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Payment of Rs.20 lacs after institution of complaint - Complainant not yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque - Prayer of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question of fact. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that accused are active and responsible Directors of the Company - Prayer to quash complaint declined. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint - No allegation in the complaint that drawer issued chque in discharge of whole or part of the legally enforceable debt or liability - Complaint is not maintaianble. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat Kanti Vimala), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4237 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0342 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque if given by way of gift or present Dishonour of cheque - Complaint under S.138 is not maintaianble. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat Kanti Vimala), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4237 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0342 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Absent - If the presence of the complainant is not necessary on the day the complaint is fixed then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section. (Associated Cement Co.Ltd. Vs Keshvanand), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 238 (S.C.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 : 1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998 SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 : 1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR.) 309 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Firm - Managing partner of the firm and the person who represents the association can be prosecuted along with the firm or association - All the partners and members of the association need not be arraigned as accused persons. (Nucor Wires Ltd. Vs HMT International), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0202 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0340 : 1997 ILR KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL.91 COMPANY CASES 850 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Large number of accused - Court to find out as to whether all the accused persons are properly arraigned as accused persons - If the Court finds that some of the accused persons are unnecessarily being arrayed it is always open to the Court to discharge them or direct the complainant to delete their names to avoid unnecessary delay, harassment and also causing inconvenience to such persons. (Nucor Wires Ltd. Vs HMT International), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0202 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0340 : 1997 ILR KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL.91 COMPANY CASES 850 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him - Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank, New Delhi - Presented through bank at Chandigarh - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0638 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Plea for quashment on the ground that notice was not served - Plea repelled - It is for the complainant to establish during the trial that notice was sent. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Letter demanding payment - Letter requiring the accused to make payment is equivalent to legal notice. (German Remedies Ltd. Vs Harish C.Duggal Agencies), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of payment within 11 days Drawer had a right to make payment within 15 days - Drawer cannot take advantage of the complainant having restricted the period to 11 days. (German Remedies Ltd. Vs Harish C.Duggal Agencies), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint and civil suit pending - Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY)

#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Presumption of truth - When a man files a complaint and supports it by oath rendering himself liable to prosecution and imprisonment if it is false, he is entitled to be believed unless there is some apparent reason for disbelieving him and he is entitled to have the person against whom he filed complaint brought before the Court and tried. (M/s Lily Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar Vs Darshan Lal), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0069 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 72-- - Cheque presented within six months but reached Drawee's bank after six months - Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficient funds Held, offence u/s 138 is made out. (Jogy David Vs Babu), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0178 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0753 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0711 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0319 : 1998 (1) KLT 0038 #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, which ever is earlier - Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days - When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Refer to drawer' - It does not necessarily mean that cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds - The endorsement 'Refer to drawer' may mean many reasons including the reason of insufficiency of funds - It is for complainant to prove that endorsement 'refer to drawer meant that there were insufficient funds - Offence not proved in absence of evidence on this point. (A.C.Raj Vs M.Rajan), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (KERALA) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Presented after six months from the date on which it was drawn - Complaint is not maintainable - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Om Parkash Vs Gurcharan Singh), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (P&H) : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0152 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0398 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0433 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Presented for the second time - Again dishonoured - Notice issued - Payment not made within time - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs Damodar Prasad Gupta), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRI. LR (RAJASTHAN) 0847 : 1998(2) CIVIL LJ 0067 : 1997(3) RCR(CRL.) 0216 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 0433 : 1998(94) COMP. CASES 0797 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1545 : 1997(2) CCR 0503 : 1997 CRI LR (RAJ) 0185 : 1997 RAJ CRI 0391 : 1997 (2) RAJ LW 0726 #17: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter, if any instructions are issued to the Bank for non-payment and the cheque is returned to the payee with such an endorsement, it amounts to dishonour of cheque and it comes within the meaning of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (M/s Shradha Foundation (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s Suryo Udyog Limited & Anr.), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 623 (ORISSA) : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0637 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice given - Payment not made within time - Complaint filed within one month of date on which cause of action arose Re-presentation of dishonoured cheque during pendency of complaint - Dishonour of cheque again - Does not necessitate issue of another notice to drawer entitling him to claim further time of 15 days - Non-issue of second notice does not vitiate proceedings already initiated. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K.Ravindranath Shetty), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 42-- - Re-presentation of cheque after lodging complaint - Held, it is open to drawee to present dishonoured cheque again and again to bank during validity period of cheque, even after lodging complaint. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K.Ravindranath Shetty), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL

INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Stop payment' - Contract for storage of goods and to keep them in safe condition - Damage to goods - Payment stopped - Civil suit filed for recovering the loss - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case criminal proceedings stayed till disposal of the civil suit. (Anil Kumar Parolia Vs Mohd.Shafique), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 20 (CALCUTTA) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured Prosecution of Chairman alone without impleading the Company - Complaint is maintainable Under S.141, the Company and the person who is incharge and responsible to Company for conduct of its business are both liable for punishment, but there is no requirement that both of them should be prosecuted - Their liability is independent - Each of them is independently liable for punishment. (R.Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (A.P.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0470 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR 0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0169 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH .COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summoning order - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - Held, when facts are in dispute, in that event High Court will not exercise its inherent powers and indulge in the minute scrutiny of facts - It could be so done only on admitted facts - Petitioner may approach the Magistrate that process against him ought not to have been issued and Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (M/s Atma Tube Products Limited & Ors. Vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (P&H) : 1997 (2) AIJ 0668 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0776 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0200 #23: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Notice issued but when it was received neither mentioned in complaint nor in statement - Complaint is not maintainable as it does not disclose commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act - Plea that all such questions are to be determined by trial Court, negated - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Parmod Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (H.P.) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make payment within IS days from date of receipt of notice or refusal to accept notice - Complaint filed within seven days from date of refusal to accept notice - Held, complaint is premature as complainant had no cause of action on date of complaint. (Ashok Hegde Vs JathinV.Attawan), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0773 : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0433 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0530 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0123 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0445 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3691 : 1997 (3) CCR 0776 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bank endorsement 'Signatures did not tally' and 'Refer to drawer' - Expression 'Refer to drawer' means there were not sufficient funds with the bank in the account of drawer - Case under S.138 is made out - The question as to whether signatures of the drawer did or did not tally is a question of fact to be decided at trial. (M/s Lily Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar Vs Darshan Lal), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0069 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Repeated representation - It is permitted within six months or within the date of its validity whichever is earlier - Drawee can issue notice on any of the dishonour and on failure of the drawer to make payment can initiate prosecution. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 - Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment - Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice - Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss.138, 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278

#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused pleaded payment - Onus is heavy - Mere entry in the account books cannot be taken as a conclusive proof for the discharge of the onus as the account books are self - serving statements. (Vinay Kumar Jain Vs Narender Prasad), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 364 (P&H) #4: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissed in default and accused acquitted - Restoration application also dismissed - Order is legal as Magistrate has no power to order the restoration of complaint - Such order cannot be set aside under S.482 Cr.P.C. (H.P.Agro Industries Vs M.P.S.Chawla), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (H.P.) : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0686 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0346 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured fourth time - Complaint is maintainable - Held, if cheque is presented again and again, the cause of prosecute subsists but if notice has been issued thereafter, re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause. (Sunil Behal Vs Bliagwat Dayal Gupta & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - For payment of cheque amount with interest and cost - Notice is not invalid. (Kunjan Panicker Vs Christudas), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0615 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0235 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0477 : 1997 (2) KLT 0539 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissed for default - Restoration Complaint filed in 1994 - Complainant had been appearing regularly and committed no default Accused summoned - Complaint ordered to be restored and to proceed from the stage when it was dismissed. (Steel Strips Ltd. Vs Bhagwati Steels), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (P&H) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Question has to be decided on the basis of averments made in the complaint. (A.Chinnaswami, Coimbatore Vs M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0505 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0215 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0478 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0395 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0409 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0584 : 1997 (3) MAH LJ 0335 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Company - Cheque drawn by Company signed by Managing Director - Notice to Company is a must - Notice addressed to the Managing Director of the Company by name making demand for payment on dishonour of cheque - Held, in the absence of notice to the Company which had drawn the cheque offence under Section 138 is not made out - Complaint filed against Managing director by name who had singed the cheque not tenable in the circumstances. (A.Chinnaswami, Coimbatore Vs M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0505 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0215 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0478 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0395 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0409 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0584 : 1997 (3) MAH LJ 0335 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Acquittal on finding that before filing complaint notice was not served within the prescribed period - Finding is one of fact and based on proper appreciation of evidence - No interference is called for. (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.Thomas Manjaly & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) - 1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S.C.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0661 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `T' filed complaint against `Dr.T' - `Dr.T' alleging theft of cheque and also filing a complaint - `Dr.T.' convicted in complaint filed by `T' while `T' discharged in complaint filed by `Dr.T' - In appeal `Dr.T' acquitted - Revision and appeal disposed by a common order by High Court - High Court upheld the acquittal of `Dr.T' and set aside the order of acquittal of `T' - As notice not issued before filing complaint u/s 138 NI Act so `Dr.T' acquitted and this is a finding of fact and is based on proper appreciation of evidence and needs no interference - However the High Court judgment setting aside the order of discharge passed in favour of `T' cannot be sustained as on perusal of record Supreme Court finds that the trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the evidence adduced on behalf of `Dr.T' was insufficient to make out a prima facie against `T' - Order of High Court setting aside discharge of `T' set aside. (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.Thomas Manjaly & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) - 1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S.C.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0661

#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 However, if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - How it matures into offence - Issue of cheque, its dishonour and omission to make payment of the amount despite notice matures into an offence on the sixteenth day after the service of notice and the offence would be continuing so long as the amount remains unpaid. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed by duly authorised agent of payee - There is no requirement that complaint should be filed personally by payee or holder in due course. (Surinder Singh Vs John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0622 : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0247 #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' - Cheque presented for collection at place `J' Cheque dishonoured - Held, courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Limited Company - Complaint filed by Senior Manager of the company who was authorised by General manager - Complaint prima facie maintainable. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused making part payment - Right of payee to prosecute the accused under S.138 is not waived. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power of - attomey holder - Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning of witnesses by defence - Request allowed by Magistrate - Order upheld - Held, S.254 Cr.P.C. is not limited to evidence of prosecution only - It deals equally with the defence evidence if accused intends to produce the same. (Madhu Bansal Vs Dinesh Kumar), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0569 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0459 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0141 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 2020 : 1996 (4) CCR 0604 : 1996 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0172 : 1996 CRI LT 0384 : 1996 (2) CHAND LR (CIV & CRI) 0493 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning of witnesses

by defence - Magistrate allowed application - Reasons not given-Order is irregular but not illegal - Leading of evidence includes examination of witnesses - Summoning of witnesses is another thing-A witness can be examined even without issuance of summons if a party keeps him present. (Madhu Bansal Vs Dinesh Kumar), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0569 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0459 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0141 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 2020 : 1996 (4) CCR 0604 : 1996 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0172 : 1996 CRI LT 0384 : 1996 (2) CHAND LR (CIV & CRI) 0493 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -Cheque presented after five months of its issue - Not a ground to quash complaint - Cheque can be presented at any time of its validity. (Sunil Talwar Vs Inderjit Singh), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 28 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0699 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - Landlord authorised his general Power of Attorney holder to collect rent and file civil & Revenue suits in case of dispute - Held, attorney can file criminal complaint too - Mere fact that word `Criminal Court' has not been expressly mentioned would not preclude the Attorney from filing criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Surinder Singh Vs John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0622 : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0247 #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid - But only one complaint is maintainable - Repeated, multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque - Not permissible. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Complaint fixed for 20th May but counsel misheard it to be 22nd May - Non appearance of complainant or his counsel on 20th May was neither intentional nor due to negligence - Order of dismissal for default set aside. (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.Saghir), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.B.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0709 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Means many reasons including the reason that there was no sufficient fund for honouring the cheque. (Raj Vs Rajan), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0680 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0508 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0027 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0059 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1939 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0359 : 1997 (3) CCR 0643 : 1997 (1) KLT 0302 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death of complainant - Proceedings do not ipso facto terminate or abate - Magistrate can allow substitution if satisfied from surrounding circumstances and materials on record that such permission should be given - Son allowed to be substituted as complainant. (S.Reddappa Vs M.Vijaya), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0160 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0609 : 1997 (2) CRIMES 0272 : 1997 (1) CCR 0631 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention that dishonour of cheque is only a civil liability - Plea negated. (Ajit Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not served and notice intentionally sent at wrong address - Held, these are matters of evidence - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Ajit Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Signature on AD different from the signature on cheque - Correctness of address and despatch by registered post not disputed Presumption is delivery of notice to the accused - A person consciously or unconsciously may put different signatures - In the instant case the accused being conscious about anticipated litigation might have scribed different signature with dishonest and deliberate intention of defeating provisions. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603

#7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque given as advance payment Consideration can be past, present or future - If a cheque is given for future consideration it would be for valid consideration and in discharge of legal debts and liabilities and the consideration cannot be said as unlawful. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by a Proprietary concern in favour of Proprietary concern - Complaint filed in personal name (of the complainant and accused) without impleading the trading concern - Held, in case of Proprietary concern the Proprietor is always an affected person who can either indict or be indicted as such the present complaint is rightly initiated by Proprietor against accused Proprietor. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #9: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Body of cheque not written by the drawer - Law does not provide that in case of negotiable instruments entire body has to be written by the maker or drawer only - What is material is signature of drawer or maker and not the body writing, hence question of body writing has no significance. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque issued by the attorney - Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right - In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Payment made - Held, once an offence has been committed and is a complete offence, merely by making payment will not put an end to the same - It may affect the gravity of the offence - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (M/s Compact Disc India Ltd. & Ors. Vs Contour Advertising (P) Ltd.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0789 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0015 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Demand must be of the cheque amount - if a bigger amount with interest is claimed in the notice, it is not sufficient notice. (Raj Vs Rajan), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0680 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0508 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0027 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0059 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1939 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0359 : 1997 (3) CCR 0643 : 1997 (1) KLT 0302 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Every summons or warrant issued under S.204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of complaint. (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.Saghir), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.B.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0709 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - In the matter of sentence, the Magistrate is given a discretionary power depending upon the amount for which the cheque is drawn. (Swarnalatha Vs Chandramohan), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1996(3) CRIMES 283 #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Complainant appearing for four years but complainant not appearing on one date - Complaint not to be dismissed for default - It is a not judicious exercise of discretion. (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.Saghir), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.B.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0709 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not sent within 15 days of receiving information from Bank - Complaint quashed. (Jatinder Kumar Chopra Vs Harish Kumar), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (P&H)

#17: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Complaint speaking only of issuance of notice - Not specifically pointed out as to when it was received by respondent - Nothing to show even in the statement recorded - Held, complaint does not prima facie disclose the facts so as to constitute the commission of an offence - Complaint is not maintainable. (Parmod Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (H.P.) : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0764 : 1997(1) SLJ 0336 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Self drawn cheque given to a person in discharge of legal liability - Cheque dishonoured - Drawer of cheque is guilty of offence under S.138 of the Act - Possessor of a self drawn cheque comes within the definition of 'Holder in due course'. (Mahesh Goyal Vs S.K.Sharma), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0684 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0646 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0301 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0273 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0420 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 2868 : 1997 (3) CCR 0200 : 1997 (24) CRI LT 0117 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - 'Holder in due course' - Cheque payable to bearer - The expression 'Holder in due course' means a person who is possessor of an instrument even when it is payable to bearer - If the bill is payable to holder then he has to be a payee or endorsee of the same. (Mahesh Goyal Vs S.K.Sharma), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0684 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0646 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0301 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0273 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0420 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 2868 : 1997 (3) CCR 0200 : 1997 (24) CRI LT 0117 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Request also made by drawer to drawee not to present the cheque - Drawee still presenting the cheque - Cheque dishonoured by bank as per instructions of drawer and not on account of insufficiency of funds - Offence under Section 138 is not made out. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Vs Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0587 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0349 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0249 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0438 : 1997 BJ 0709 : 1997 (2) CRIMES 0486 : 1997 (3) CCR 0147 #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Must be of the cheque amount - If a bigger or smaller amount is claimed in the notice, it is not sufficient notice. (Gopa Devi Ozha Vs Sujit Paul), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 603 (CALCUTTA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0664 : 1995(3) CIVIL LJ 0897 : 1995(3) RCR(CRL.) 0646 : 1996(2) BANKING CASES 0515 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0127 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 3412 : 1996 (4) CCR 0174 : 1997 (1) CCR 0249 : 1996 (2) KLT 0886 : 1995 (2) CHN 0037 : 1996 CCLR 0040 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued on account of rent - Payment stopped as petitioner had already made payment in cash - Complaint quashed as when the cheques were issued circumstances were different and when the cheques were recalled the circumstances were different. (Dr.P.N.Pandit Vs Anil Joshi), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Person signing the cheque has made it clear that he has signed it as a partner and for the partnership firm - He cannot back out from the liability of signing as such and other partners also at this stage cannot be said to be not liable - Matter of evidence has to be considered at the time of trial. (M/s Ghawa Ram & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s Punjab Syndicate Finance (India) Ltd. & Anr.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0461 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0238 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0139 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accepting of oral evidence without support of the documentary evidence is a matter of appreciation of evidence in each particular case and it will have to be done at the trial, when the Court will be called upon to decide the truth or otherwise of the alleged evidence. (M/s Ghawa Ram & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s Punjab Syndicate Finance (India) Ltd. & Anr.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0461 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0238 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0139 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Once the cheque is issued, law takes care to see that it is honoured, failing which an erring drawer will be penalised - For constituting the offence dishonour of cheque is material and it can very well be on closure of account also. (Shivendra Sansguiri Vs Adineo), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 348 (BOMBAY) : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0001 : 1996(2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1816 : 1996 (4) CCR

0429 : 1998 ALLMR 0880 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Payment stopped Complaint is maintainable - Court has to examine Whether the return of the cheque was on account of insufficiecy of funds. (S.K.Jain Vs Narinder Singh), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Agreement to sell - Non payment of the balance amount in time - Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received - Three cheques issued - Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi, cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction Agreement denied by the complainant - Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of signature of party or Advocate - Object of notice is to inform drawer of the fact of dishonour of cheque and to ask him to make good the amount - Issue of notice with material particulars is substantial compliance with statutory requirement- Mere omission of party's or his Advocate's signature in notice would not make notice invalid. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B.Rangappa), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Limitation - Notice should be given within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank -Notice when received by the addressee is immaterial. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B.Rangappa), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal for default -Complainant exempted from personal appearance - Failure of counsel to appear on the date fixed - Dismissal of the complaint in default - Order set aside. (Steel Authority of India Vs Vishwa Karma Agro), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 102 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0810 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0691 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0205 : 1996 (4) CRIMES 0377 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Specific demand not made - Drawer asked to explain why criminal proceedings be not instituted against him - Held, it is not a valid notice of demand - Proceedings u/s 138 cannot be initiated. (Harvinder Singh Vs Smt.Suman Rani & Ors.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0550 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0544 : 1996 BJ 0672 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Drawer of cheque informing drawee not to present the cheque as he has not sufficient funds in the bank -Drawee still presenting the cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Held, S.138 is not attracted in such a case - Complaint quashed. (Gopal Krishan and Anr. Vs Rameshwar Dass), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 108 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0749 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0492 #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 20 cheques - One notice in respect of 20 cheques - Valid. (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Linkers Associates Ltd. & Ors.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 20 complaints in respect of dishonour of 20 cheques - Evidence recorded in one case and carbon copies placed in 19 other cases - Held, where common evidence has to be recorded Court in order to save time can record evidence in one case and such evidence can be placed on record in other cases - Omission to pass such an order is a mere irregularity. (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Linkers Associates Ltd. & Ors.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #10: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Taking cognizance of offence - Recording satisfaction of a prima facie case - Evidence not discussed - Does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner who has ample opportunity to test the veracity of those witnesses by cross-examining them at the appropriate stage and if necessary, by leading defence. (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Linkers Associates Ltd. & Ors.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - A.D.Not received back - Complaint dismissed on the ground that notice has not been served - Held, clause 27 of General Clauses Act clearly envisages that when Registered notice is posted it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is given. (Nazim Vs State), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Three cheques issued by the same accused - All the three cheques dishonoured - Joint notice in respect of all the cheques - Single complaint can be filed in respect of the three cheques. (Swarnalatha Vs Chandramohan), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1996(3) CRIMES 283 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed by one of the partners - It suffers from no infirmity - Order of dismissal set aside. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #14: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder Can file a complaint. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. Vs Pukharaj Jain), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -Genuineness disputed Accused at the stage of defence evidence seeking to send the same to handwriting expert for his opinion - Held, the document can be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion. (Kuruvilla Vs Sivarama Pillai), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 does not involve moral turpitude - Order to discharge from service set aside. (Saseendran Nair Vs General Manager), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) (D.B.) 0245 : : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0298 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0575 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0177 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 4289 : 1997 (2) CCR 0225 : 1996(2) KLT 482 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Wrong cheque number - Only single transaction between parties - Mistake in number cannot mislead drawer of cheque and there is sufficient compliance. (Viswanathan Vs Ramachandran Nair), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving notice' -Meaning - If the payee has dispatched notice on the correct address of the drawer reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days, it can be regarded that he made the demand by giving notice within the statutory period. (Syed Hamid Bafaky Vs Moideen), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0765 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0182 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0615 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0267 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1013 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - If could not be actually served due to the culpable default or deliberate evasion of the accused, then the same would constitute `receipt' of notice. (Syed Hamid Bafaky Vs Moideen), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0765 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0182 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0615 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0267 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1013 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - toned after 15 days of the receipt of intimation from bank regarding bouncing of cheque - Notice illegal - Complaint quashed. (Jatinder Kumar Chopra Vs Harish Kumar), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Petition for quashing order of summoning - Facts of the case disclosing triable issues - Allegations in the complaint clearly constituting cognizable offence - Filing of complaint justified - Complainant

cannot be thrown at the threshold. (Navrattan Jain Vs M/s Capital Leasing & Finance Co.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0300 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0633 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0118 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Liability to pay - Cheque issued by employee in favour of employer - Relations were of master and servant or employee and employer - No business or commercial or mercantile relations between the parties - No liability to pay Complainant failed to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint to be vigilantly checked by the Criminal Courts and they should not allow short circuits - Parties should not be allowed to appease their anger or return their vengeance by starting proceedings in criminal Courts where proper remedy is to resort of Civil Court. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138 - There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque in favour of partnership firm - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by a partner - Held, complaint is filed by a proper person. (Brijlal Vs Jugal Kishore & Ors.), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0155 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0636 #2: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Manager or agent of proprietorship concern -Can file a complaint. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. Vs Pukharaj Jain), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for non appearance of complainant - There is no provision in the Code for revival of the complaint. (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal & Anr.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed for non prosecution on 21.9.1991 - On same day restoration application filed -Complaint restored Revision against - Revision allowed by Sessions Judge -Thereafter complainant filing appeal against order dt.21.9.1991 - Held, conduct of complainant not bona fide and in good faith in prosecuting the matter and having taken chance by contesting application filed by accused Delay in filing appeal not condoned. (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal & Anr.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047 #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' but sufficient funds in account - Cheque returned by bank on ground of `Refer to drawer' - No case made out for quashing complaint - Trial Court to decide real cause for non- payment of cheque. (Deepak Agarwal Vs Shanti Swarup Jain), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0037 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0493 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0403 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0771 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0683 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0596 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Taking cognizance of offence - If the Magistrate takes some steps as provided under S.200 Cr.P.C. it necessarily means that he has taken cognizance of the offence. (R.Rajendra Reddy Vs M/s Sujaya Feeds), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0491 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0692 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1427 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Magistrate recording statement of complainant and marking some documents - Magistrate issued summoning order without recording his opinion - Held, summoning order is not invalid - Can be inferred that Magistrate applied his mind and only then passed the summoning order - It is not always for the Magistrate to specifically state that he has considered the material and formed an opinion that there are grounds for further proceedings in the case. (R.Rajendra Reddy Vs M/s Sujaya Feeds), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0491 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0692 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1427 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Prosecution can be launched. (J.Veeraraghavan Vs Lalith Kumar), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0669 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0428 : 1996 BJ 0191 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0205 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1882 : 1994 (2) LW (CRL.) 0663 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque on any of the contingencies or eventualities other than the ones mentioned in S.138 of the Act - Magistrate is competent to take cognizance. (J.Veeraraghavan Vs Lalith Kumar), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0669 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0428 : 1996 BJ 0191 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0205 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1882 : 1994 (2) LW (CRL.) 0663 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted Accused subsequently paying entire amount to complainant - Accused given benefit of S.360 Cr.P.C. and released on probation. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.360) (Gian Chand Vs M/s Malwa Traders), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (P&H) : 1995 (2) AIJ 0764 : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0383 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0167 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0300 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent on 23.4.1992 received on 25.4.1992 - Complaint tiled on 3.6.1992 - Held, complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9.5.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10.5.1992. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0510 #12: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Criminal liability is not constituted. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. Vs Pukharaj Jain), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complaint filed against partners of firm and firm not made a party - Complaint is maintainable. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1102 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Contention that neither notice nor complaint within time - Held, at this stage it cannot be said that the complaint is either not maintainable or time barred - These are questions of fact. (Mahabir Singh Vs Chandan Manerjee), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (P&H) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0405 : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0186 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability to pay of firm `A' Partner of firm `A' issued cheque from account of another sister concern `B' of that firm Complaint filed against partners of firm `A' - Held, complaint is filed against proper persons. (Brijlal Vs Jugal Kishore & Ors.), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0155 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0636 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Specific averment as to persons responsible for conduct of its business not made - However, certain officials of the company arrayed as accused - Absence of such averments in the complaint not material - Prosecution against Company and/or other individual officials named therein cannot be quashed. (N.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0482

#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision enforced on 1.4.1989 -Cheque issued and dishonoured before this date - Provision is not applicable. (Bal Chand Vs State of Haryana), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 394 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0148 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant alleging that on demand accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences - Charge framed against accused - Petition for quashing proceedings on the ground that allegations were vague At this stage there is no ground to exercise inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint. (Bal Chand Vs State of Haryana), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 394 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0148 #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sole proprietorship firm Not made party - Held, sole proprietary concern need not be made as party in the complaint apart from the sole proprietor. (P.Muthuraman Vs Shree Padmavathi Finance), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 486 (MADRAS) : 1995(2) BANKING CASES 0304 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0165 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0656 : 1995 BJ 0343 #20: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - List of witnesses - No provision that list of witnesses shall be mentioned in the complaint - It can be supplied at any time - Until and unless it is supplied summons or warrant shall not be issued. (Kamal Vs State), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Witnesses - It is the discretion of the learned Magistrate to examine any number of witnesses or the sole complainant for his satisfaction to show whether any prima facie case is established. (Kamal Vs State), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #22: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented three times - Notice issued within 15 days of the last dishonour - Notice issued is valid. (Kamal Vs State), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence cannot be compounded. (Cr.P.C.1973, S.320) (Antony Vs Sherafudin), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (KERALA) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned undelivered - Provision is not applicable. (Kharar Rice & General Mills Vs Jiwa Ram Parkash), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (P&H) #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - It is permissible. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1102 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - In response to the notice the drawee sent the payment as per draft and the payee refused to accept the same - Complaint and summoning order quashed as complaint is filed to harass the accused. (Jai Gopal Khanna Vs J.K.Engg.Works), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0112 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0355 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0032 : 1995(1) BCLR 0252 : 1994(3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565 #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by UPC - There is a presumption that unless it is returned to the sender it has reached the addressee within a reasonable time Principles of constructive service of notice can be applied to such cases. (S.K.Trading & Co. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0008 #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is complete as soon as the cheque is dishonoured - The period of 15 days is just to give one more opportunity to the drawer of the cheque to escape punishment provided by S.138. (S.K.Trading & Co. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.)

0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0008 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid Complaint u/s 138 quashed. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint against father & son - Father ordered to be summoned - However, summons issued both against father & son - Application of son to discharge him from the case dismissed on the ground that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for the discharge of the accused in summon case - High Court quashed summoning order against son - Held, it is abuse of process of Court. (Atul Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0637 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0392 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The mere fact that the company had been declared a sick industrial unit is not a ground to quash the complaint. (M.M.Rajagaria Vs State of Punjab), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0464 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Means there are not sufficient funds in the account to meet the claim. (M.M.Rajagaria Vs State of Punjab), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0464 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint - Date given in notice which has been exhibited - Held, there is no deficiency in complaint. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice Dt.10.6.1992 - On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6 - If the notice is dispatched on 13.6.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely - High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him - It is violative of S.200 - Defect is, however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds - Notice not issued - Cheque presented again - No illegality - Complaint is maintainable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of issuance of notice mentioned in complaint and not date of receipt of notice - Mere fact that the date of delivery of notice is not mentioned in the complaint, does not affect the maintainability of the complaint. (S.K.Trading & Co. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES

0008 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.S.Selvamani), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint sought that full details as to dishonour of cheque not given in notice - Held, technicalities should not come in the way of justice. (Avtar Singh Vs Accounts Officer, Telephones Revenue), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 1995 (1) BCLR 0342 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance should precede the recording of the sworn statement and if the Magistrate straight away on receipt of the complaint records the sworn statement and thereafter takes cognizance, it contravenes S.200 Cr.P.C. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by firm - Persons who are incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business can be prosecuted without the firm itself being prosecuted. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Validity - 7 days time given for payment Held, notice is not bad as it is not necessary for the payee to specify any time in the notice for making payment. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount due on cheque whether a liability or in the nature of a loan - Question is to be gone into after recording of evidence - Summoning order cannot be quashed. (Vikram Bhargav Vs Ashish Pal Khatri), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0596 : 1995 (1) LJR 0552 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheques issued from Delhi - Cheque dishonoured at Panipat - Court at Panipat has jurisdiction to try the complaint. (Vikram Bhargav Vs Ashish Pal Khatri), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0596 : 1995 (1) LJR 0552 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issue by servant - Amounts to issuing of cheque by the principal. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0277 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed u/s 420 IPC instead of S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Held, when allegations are for an offence u/s.420 IPC nothing prevents the complainant from filing the complaint u/s.420 IPC. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0277 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred

and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - Notice received on 9.6.1993 - 15 days time to be counted from 10.6.1993 and would expire on 24.6.1993 - Complaint to be filed within one month - In the instant case it starts from 25.6.1993 and therefore the complaint ought to have been filed before 24.7.1993 - It cannot be said that complaint can be filed upto 25.7.1993, which was a holiday, and it having been filed on 26.7.1993 is within time - Held, complaint filed is beyond time and therefore cognizance is barred. (Poornasree Agencies Vs Universal Enterprises), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (KERALA) : 1995(2) CIVIL LJ 0660 : 1995(1) REC CRI R 0010 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0423 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0142 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0798 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1858 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0231 : 1995 (1) KLT 0370 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice not issued - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint filed on basis of second dishonour - Complaint quashed. (Gulshan Rai Vs Darshan Lal), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 55 (P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0186 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0500 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0194 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0445 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0644 : 1994 (2) KLT 0997 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stop payment - Nowhere complainant says that the cheque was dishonoured due to want of sufficient amount in the account - Held, complaint rightly dismissed. (V.K.Balakrishnan Pillai Vs Abdullakutty), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Liability arises only when cheque is issued to discharge any debt or other liability - Mere issue of cheque for any other purpose like gift or present without sufficient funds in Bank does not constitute offence. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Prosecution of a Company for an offence u/s 138 is not prohibited by S.17 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Exclusion of mens rea in S.138 for fastening criminal liability strictly not arbitrary and hence not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso - Fails to make the payment' do not mean `Failure without reasonable cause' - Drawer of the cheque is not entitled to lead evidence that he had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons mentioned in S.138. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of List-I (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Another person' - Covers payee and holder in due course and not a mere holder or endorsee without consideration. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Both places, i.e. place where cheque was handed over and place where it was dishonoured have jurisdiction. (Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs Gitanjli Motors Ltd. & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action to file complaint arises only after expiry of 15 days from service of statutory notice period - Complaint filed within that 15 days period - Held complaint is filed before cause of action had arisen. (Dr.Kanchana Kamalanathan Vs Nagaraj), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 565 (MADRAS) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0123 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0959 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0366 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time Complaint filed on that basis - Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Provision is not applicable as cheque is not returned on account of insufficient funds. (Bhagat Ram Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 610 (P&H) : 1995 (1) AIJ 0180 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint sought to be quashed on the plea that petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one of its Directors - Not brought on record so far - Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him. (Rajan Kinnerkar Vs Eric Cordeiro), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0462 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint sought on the plea that notice is beyond 15 days - Accused to raise this plea before trial Magistrate by filing a separate application and the matter to be decided by a separate order. (Punam Sinha Vs Tarsem Goyal), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Deliberate evasion to receive notice Amounts to constructive service of notice. (S.Ravi Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R.Jain), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0195 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second presentation of cheque - If the payee does not choose to act on the first presentation, dishonour etc. then payee can represent the cheque and after complying with the requirements of the provision can file a complaint. (S.Ravi Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R.Jain), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0195

#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque whether dishonoured due to insufficient funds or not - It could be seen only during the course of trial - Prayer for quashing complaint declined. (N.Arumugham Vs M.K.Punnusamy), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (MADRAS) : 1985 (82) COMP. CASES 0296 #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder can file a complaint on behalf of the payee. (Abdul Rahim Vs Amal Kumar), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 60 (CALCUTTA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0368 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence which could be awarded more than what the Magistrate empowered to award - Held, whenever a Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused is guilty and that he ought to receive a punishment more severe than such a Magistrate is empowered to give, he may record his opinion and forward the accused to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to whom he is subordinate. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.29(2) and 325(2). (Stalion Shox Pvt.Ltd. Co. & Ors. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presented again - Cheque against dishonoured - Notice issued within 15 days of last dishonour - Notice is valid. (Stalion Shox Pvt.Ltd. Co. & Ors. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - One complaint filed of dishonour of 11 cheques No prejudice shown to be caused to accused - No ground to quash the proceedings - Held, accused could raise this point before trial Court (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.212, 219). (Stalion Shox Pvt.Ltd. Co. & Ors. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Cheques issued at place `M' and the same presented for collection at place `M' - Cheque dishonoured by the bank at place `J' and intimation of dishonour received at place `M' - Held, Court at place `M' has jurisdiction to try the case. (Tarsem Lal Vs Prem Nath Palta), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 129 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0406 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0288 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0585 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 2408 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint to be read alongwith the sworn statement - Should not be read disjunctively - `Refer to drawer' are susceptible to more explanations than one - If in the sworn statement the complainant states that cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient amount, it is sufficient. (Ravi Vs Mohammed Ismail), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0495 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0692 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0380 : 1994 (81) COMP. CASES 0907 : 1995 BJ 0547 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0140 : 1994 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0071 : 1994 (1) KLT 0930 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - From the date of its issue to the date it bears it is only a bill of exchange and becomes cheque only on the date shown therein - Validity period of six months is to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque. (M/s.Ram Singh Amarsingh & Ors. Vs M/s.Kandasamay Textiles & Co.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (MADRAS) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued at the address, which was insufficient but given by the drawn himself - Prayer for quashing on this score decline. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - Held, it is sufficient compliance if it is stated that the accused owed the sum to the complainant on account of loan and salary. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s.Berlina Construction.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024

: 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0452 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - If main features of S.138 are borne out from the allegations of the complaint then High Court will not interfere - The Court has to look into the main features viz. the date of issue of the cheque, the date of dishonouring of the cheque by the Bank, the date of issue of the notice and the date of filing of the complaint in Court and if these facts are borne out from the allegations in the complaint, then Court of competent jurisdiction is entitled to take cognizance and the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s.Berlina Construction.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0452 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Can be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier - Cheque can be presented any number of times - On such dishonour of the cheque a fresh right accrues in favour of the complainant every time and he can enforce that right by initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transaction taking place before enforcement of amended act - But cheque issued thereafter - Complaint is maintainable. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed while civil suit pending - Held, both remedies, i.e. criminal complaint and civil suit are separate and not alternate. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sleeping partner - Specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioners are responsible for the business of the firm, the foundation has been laid to make the petitioner liable - Held, if the petitioner has a defence that he is not incharge of the business or responsible to the company, he can show it to the trial Court Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. (Kahan Chand Gupta Vs Raj Kumar), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0310 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0336 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Cheque again present - Cheque again dishonoured - Notice again issued and on failure to make the payment within 15 days of the service of notice complaint filed - Complaint is time barred. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - To make out an offence conditions to be satisfied are (1) Cheque must have been issued to discharge a liability (2) cheque must have been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds (3) Notice must be given by the payee to the drawer (4) The drawer's failure to pay the amount of cheque within fifteen days of service of the notice. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - Notice given - A.D. received late Period is to be computed fro the date of receipt of A.D. (Santa Priya Engineer Vs Udaya Sankar Das), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (CALCUTTA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0468 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0542 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0560 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0043 : 1994 (2) BCLR 0052 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0066 : 1994 BJ 0001

#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented several times - Notice issued only when the cheque was dishonoured for the last time - Proceedings are maintainable on the basis of subsequent dishonour. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s.Berlina Construction.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0452 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' - Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No illegality - Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 140-- - `Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under S.138 - S.140 which excludes the defence that the drawer had no reason to believe that the cheque issued by him may be dishonoured on presentment not unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Correction in the name of accused - Complaint filed against `A' son of `B' - and cognizance taken - Name of accused allowed to be corrected as `B' son of `A' - Order allowing correction in the name of accused upheld. (Ninan Vs Rufus Olivero), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (KERALA) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of summoning order - Accused raising plea that process against him should not have been issued - Held, the Magistrate may reconsider the issue & to decide accordingly. (Dr.T.N.Chaturvedi Vs Karnail Singh Chauhan), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 333 (P&H) : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0517 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. (Dr.T.N.Chaturvedi Vs Karnail Singh Chauhan), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 333 (P&H) : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0517 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.138 not fulfilled - Complaint and the summoning order quashed. (Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0258 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissed for default - Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday - Notice not issued to the parties - Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear - Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice - Order set aside - Case restored. (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Drawer of the cheque insolvent - It does not absolve the accused from the offence. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Post dated cheque - Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Some more amount claimed in the notice - It does not invalidate the notice. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561

#23: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Five cheques involved - Single complaint filed Complaint is maintainable. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors of the company sought quashment of complaint on the plea that they were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company - Held, as there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioners that they are incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, complaint and summoning order quashed. (Sushil Singla Vs Haripal Singh), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 267 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0225 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - A debtor must seek his creditor Unless the place for making payment is specified a debtor must make the payment at the normal place of business of the creditor. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Main settlement made and cheques issued at placed `A' - Held, Court at place `A' has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S.G.Ramayya), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL.) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Once it is admitted that accused issued cheques to the complainant then the burden is very heavy on him to prove that the cheques were not issued in connection with the transaction as alleged by the complainant. (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S.G.Ramayya), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL.) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located - It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs State-Delhi Administration), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Sufficient funds in account - No defence is made out. (Kapil Mehra Vs Sanjeev Jain), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 710 (P&H) : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0443 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured with endorsement `Refer to drawer' - Terms used by Bank have no relevance - Court is to found out a question of fact whether there was insufficiency of funds or funds were not arranged for. (New Haryana Transport Co. Vs Hanutmal Jain), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 7 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0660 : 1993 MWN 144

#7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice Issued - Accused promising to make payment within four months - Accused not making payment - Cheque presented again - Cheque dishonoured for the second time - Notice issued and prosecution launched thereafter - Held, prosecution launched is not valid. (Chelakkannu Nadar Vs Simon), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0098 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0328 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0439 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0382 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 3515 : 1993 (2) KLT 0831 : 1993 MWN (DIS.CHQ.) 0221 #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Part payment made - Is os no avail for evading prosecution. (Ancon Engineering Co. Vs Sri Amitava Goswami), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (CALCUTTA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0679 #9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Cause of action for prosecution does not arise by mere presentation of the cheque and by its dishonour - Cause of action accrues only on following the procedure prescribed under clause (c) of proviso to S.138 of the Act. (Ancon Engineering Co. Vs Sri Amitava Goswami), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (CALCUTTA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0679 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No form is prescribed for drafting a complaint - If facts set out in the complaint constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by some person, the Magistrate has power to take cognizance of the offence under S.138 of the Act. (Iqbal Vs Uthaman), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0490 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0286 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0726 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0072 : 1993(2) KLT 0237 : 1993 MWN 0146 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence when committed by a Company, either the Company alone or the person in charge of the business of the company alone, or both of them together, can be prosecuted for the offence under S.138 of the Act. (Iqbal Vs Uthaman), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0490 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0286 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0726 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0072 : 1993(2) KLT 0237 : 1993 MWN 0146 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued pursuant to the settlement arrived at between complainant and the accused - Held, where there is a settlement and cheques are issued in pursuance of the settlement, it cannot be said that there is no debt due and that there is no contract. (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S.G.Ramayya), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL.) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint should contain allegations of the ingredients of the offence. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #14: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice of demand received by one of the accused - Notice to others received back with endorsement `Out of station' and `left without address' No illegality - No inference in the summoning order. (Inderjeet Bhatia Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (ALLAHABAD) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0086 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on a bank at Aurangabad and handed over to the complainant at Auran-gabad - Cheque presented for collection at Khanna and information from bank about dishonour of cheque received at Khanna Unless the place for making the payment is specified, a debtor must make the payment at the normal place of business of the creditor - Since the complainant has normal place of business at Khanna It was for the respondent to discharge the debt by making payment at Khanna - Held, cause of action arose to the complainant at Khanna. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Accrues only on failure to make

the payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - In proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR or the complaint. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused tendered the amount after receipt of notice - Complainant refused to receive - Accused cannot be visited with any consequence envisaged for non-payment of amount. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Mere fact that the account was short of the amount when the cheque was drawn, is of no conse-quence. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Does not mean that cheque is returned due to insufficiency of amount in the account. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint not filed - Cheque presented again and cheque again dishonoured - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is barred by limitation. (K.D.Sales Vs The Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0138 : 1994 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0148 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0499 : 1994 (1) MWN (DIS.CHQ.) 0233 : 1994 (1) SLJ 0449 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint is premature. (Ashok Verma Vs Ritesh Aero), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 443 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on different dates and presented to bank on different occasions - Last cheque dishonoured on 30.7.1990 and notice given on 23.1.1991 - Complaint does not prima facie show commission of offence. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice as to make payment within 30 days Notice not confirming to specification of statute - Complaint amounted to abuse of the process of Court. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993

(1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence is committed only when cheque bounces due to inadequate balance in the account - If cheque is returned unpaid for other grounds, no offence is committed. (Shri Swaminathan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0559 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0507 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0677 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0005 : 1994 (1) PLR 0389 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insufficiency of funds - Becomes insignificant in a case where the drawer of the cheque issues instructions to his bank to stop the payment. (Shri Swaminathan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0559 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0507 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0677 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0005 : 1994 (1) PLR 0389 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint power to be exercised sparingly. (Banarsi Dass Vs Mohinder Kumar Pahwa), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0168 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0220 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued in favour of self - Name of complainant appeared on the back of cheque - Cheque shows that it was in favour of self or bearer - Held, complainant is holder in due course. (Banarsi Dass Vs Mohinder Kumar Pahwa), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0168 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0220 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Giving Notice' - Meaning - Does not mean delivery of notice to the drawer of the cheque - If the payee has despatched notice to the correct address of the drawer reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days, it can be regarded that he made the demand by giving notice within the statutory period. (Madhu Vs Omega Pipes Ltd.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0343 : 1995(1) REC CRI R 0296 : 1994(1) BCLR 0558 : 1996(85) COMP. CASES 0263 : 1994(3) CRIMES 0071 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 3439 : 1994(1) ALT(CRL.) 603 : 1994(1) KLT 0441 : : 1994 ISJ(BANKING) 0343 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Even if there is no express or explicit averment in the complaint, court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence if the ingredients can be deducted or discerned from implications or inferences from the com-plaint. (Balakrishna Pillai Vs Abdullakutty), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (KERALA) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0189 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0515 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0366 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0561 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0327 : 1994 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0326 : 1994 (1) KLT 0411 #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Drawer of cheque residing at place `N' - Person in whose favour cheque drawn residing at place `k' - Non payment having taken place at place `K' Court at said place has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No new material can be introduced by either party in support of their contentions before the High Court in proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence is committed only on non payment within 15 days notice period-Court is barred is barred from taking cognizance of complaint in respect of such an offence prior to expiry of 15 days within which drawer has to make payment Time frame prescribed under S.138 has to be strictly construed. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993

MAHLJ 0630 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cir-cumstances under which cheque dishonoured to be totally ignored - Pay-ment not made within prescribed time Offence is made out. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Order challenged on the plea that a blank cheque had been deposited with the complainant on 26.7.1990 and not on 11.7.1991 the date f the cheque and that the complainant had issued the receipt on 26.7.1990 and thus prosecution is barred by limita-tion - Held, all these are matters of evidence to be received by the Magistrate in the trial and on mere ante dated receipt without opportunity to the complainant, the complaint cannot be thrown or rejected at this stage. (Inderjeet Bhatia Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (ALLAHABAD) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0086 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Prosecution launched on the basis of dishonour of cheque presented for the second time - Held cheque can be presented any number of times within a period of six months of the date of its issuance or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. (MADAN MOHAN Vs K.M.MENON & OTHER), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0233 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0185 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0096 : 1993 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0008 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 1167 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2654 : 1993 (2) CCR 0155 : 1993 RLR 0119 : 1993 (1) ALL CR L R 0546 : 1993 JCC 0001 : 1993 (1) CLR 0378 : 1993 (50) DLT 0033 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - To avail the penal remedy the creditor is expected to invoke the provisions of the Act Immediately - Complainant not expected to slumber over it and to issue notice after its another alleged dishonouring. (Mrs.Rita Khanna Vs M/s.R.S.Traders), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 488 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0417 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0122 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0446 : 1993 (2) PLR 0113 : 1993 (2) CRLT 0237 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No offence is made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Com-plaint not filed Cheque presented again and dishonoured - Complaint filed - Successive dishonour of the cheque on different occasions presented within its period of validity will have to be construed as constituting separate cause of action for the initiation of a prosecution. (Sivasankar Vs Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW (CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.) 0265 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint dismissed - Revision against - Accused of the offence has no right of audience. (Sivasankar Vs Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW (CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.) 0265 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Current account statement showing that there had never been the credit balance in the account - sufficient reasons to proceed as there was a prima facie case. (AD.Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Shankar & Ors.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 210 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0038 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0525 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0178 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0764 : 1993 BJ 0603 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1145 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Unless there is an allegation that the cheque bounced on account of want of sufficient funds, the

complaint is not maintainable. (Ashok Vs Vasudevan Moosad), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 258 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0712 : 1994 (1) BANK CLR 0046 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with endorsement `unclaimed' - Amounts to acceptance and receipt of notice - Complaint is maintainable. (Sosamma Vs Rajendran), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (KERALA) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0065 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0213 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0434 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0279 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0503 : 1994 BJ 0659 : 1995 BJ 0275 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2196 : 1993 (1) KLT 0629 #21: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Any debt or other liability - Consideration of cheque was towards price of bricks - Plaintiff admitting having receipts in support of such supplies - Receipts not produced - No explanation given as to why receipts not produced - Non production of the receipts leads to a presumption that either plaintiff has no such receipts or if produced, the same would not have supported the case of plaintiff. (Milkimal Peshwani Vs Sudhir Kumar Pradhan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (ORISSA) : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0169 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0288 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on 14.1.1991 for supply of food on 20.1.1991 - Food supplied - cheques received back with endorsement `Refer to drawer' Contention of accused that when cheque was issued there was no debt or other liability which was legally enforceable against him does not hold good. (Ramesh Kumar Handa & Ors. Vs Willson, Manager, Coral, Tourist Complex), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0314 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0689 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - Cheque dishonoured Complaint by employee u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and S.420 Indian Penal Code - Held, complainant (employee of sole proprietorship firm) is neither the payee nor the holder in due course of the cheque - Complaint u/s. 138 is not maintainable - Complaint u/s 420 IPC can be instituted by an employee of sole proprietorship firm - Summoning order u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act quashed and trial court ordered to proceed u/s 420 IPC according to law. (U.C.Saxena Vs Madan Mohan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0041 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0391 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0679 : 1993 (1) PLR 0161 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fresh cause of action accrues on every occasion when cheque is dishonoured - Period for sending notice demanding payment is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of intimation of last presentation. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Plea that payment was stopped prior to presentation of cheque - No ground to quash complaint. (Uggar Sain & Ors. Vs The State of Punjab & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0511 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0682 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque can be presented to Bank any number of times within a period of six months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity, whichever Is earlier, but complaint can be filed for offence only once either after dishonour of cheque for first time or after last dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be made - Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142 - Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence

theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filedQuashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -'Refer to Drawer'- Meaning - In normal banking parlance, `Refer to Drawer' means that cheque is returned as funds are not available in Drawer's account. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - Notice - Addressee deliberately evading receipt of registered notice- Amounts to constructive service of notice. (Prasanna Vs Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0436 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned as 'Account closed' - No offence is made out. (Prasanna Vs Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0436 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured-Prosecution is maintainable only when all the ingredients of S.138 are satisfied - Notice issued mentioning the dishonour of cheques and claiming vacant possession of flats - No demand made for payment of cheque - No allegation of failure to pay amount within fifteen days - Ingredients of clauses (b) & (c) of S.138 not satisfied - Prosecution under section 138 of the Act is not sustainable. (Ram Kumar soni & Anr. Vs G.Ravindranath & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL CASES 108 (A.P.) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn at place `K' and presented for collection at place `H' - Received endorsement about dishonour of cheque at place `H' - Held, Court at place `H' where part of cause at action arose, has got jurisdiction to try the case. (M/S Goutam T.V.Centre Vs M/s Apex Agencies, Hyderabad & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 137 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0341 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0152 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0389 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0723 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1004 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0441 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - Post dated cheque - To be treated to have been drawn on the date it is delivered and not to be treated as drawn on the date it bears. (Javid Ahmed Vs Syed Azmathulla Hussaini & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0447 : 1993 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0290 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0047 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0316 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0299 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2359 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0477 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0071 : 1993 APLJ (CR.) 0177 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0325 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Private complaint filed Magistrate referring case to police for enquiry who laid charge sheet later - Magistrate taking cognizance of case on police report - Not legal - Procedure prescribed in Chapter XV, Cr. RC. relating to complaints to be followed. (Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs M/s Mahee Handlooms (P) Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (A.P.) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0804 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0787 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0282 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0189 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0217 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0206 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0073 : 1993 (1) CCR 0237 : 1993 CRLJ 2362 : 1992 APLJ (CRL.) 0327 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death of complainant - In appropriate cases the Magistrate can grant permission to the son of the deceased complainant to proceed with the complaint. (Jayaranjan Vs Jayaranjan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0328 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0574 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0629 : 1995 BJ 0703 : 1993 (2) CRIMES 0666 : 1992(2) KLT 586 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused having conceded to make payment but not paying and filing the petition to quash criminal proceedings against him - Amounts to abuse

of process of Court-Not entitled to relief under section 482 Cr.P.C. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured with endorsement `Refer to Drawer' - Inference cannot be drawn that cheque is returned on account of insufficiency of funds - Cheque might have been returned for various reasons - Offence u/s.138 is not made out. (Union Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs Shan Ramanlal), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0425 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0216 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0271 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0315 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0215 : 1992 (1) AWR 0372 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or liability - Not necessary that it should be due from the drawer - Cheque can be issued for discharge of another man's debt or liability. (Alexander Vs Joseph Chacko), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (KERALA) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0784 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0388 : 1993(2) KLT 326 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned with the endorsement `Account closed' - Amounts to an offence under section 138 of the Act. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed.' - Closure of account on a date antecedent to the date of cheque - It is open to the party to show that the cheque was drawn on date antecedent to the date which the cheque bears. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141 #18: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #19: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint with a prayer to take cognizance or to convict an accused is a petition which term comes within the definition `application' as used in S.29 (2) Limitation Act and therefore S.5 Limitation Act applies. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint - Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money, i.e. the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Cause of action arises at the place where the cheque is issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is dishonoured. (Pobathi Agencies Vs State of Karnataka), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `payment stopped by the drawer' - Not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due to insufficient balance in the account. (1990 Civil Court CAses 832 (P&H) followed). (Rama Gupta & others Vs M/s.Bakeman's Home Products Ltd.), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 381 (P&H) :

1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0269 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0141 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0035 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0279 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0473 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1047 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0744 : 1992 (2) CCR 1484 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0032 : 1992 (2) SLJ 1231 : 1992 (2) ALLCRLR 0015 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0184 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Proprietary concern Complaint against - Not maintainable - Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only. (Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL.) 0347 : 1992(36) MLJ 102 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - There is no provision in the Act that Company has also to be prosecuted alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the Company - Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the person who issued the cheque. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Refer to drawer' - Bank memo not mentioning insufficiency of funds - Ingredients of offence u/s.138 of the Act stated in the complaint - Whether there were sufficient funds in the Bank or not being a question of fact, cannot be gone into in a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. (A.R.Kumbhat Vs Peejay Rubber Industries Ltd. & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0091 : 1996 (2) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0208 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0240 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0577 : 1996 BJ 0257 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0363 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 3828 : 1995 (4) CCR 0049 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - For the purpose of Cl.(a) of the proviso it is to be considered to have drawn on the date it is delivered and not on the date it bears. (Gulshan Rai Vs Anil Kumar), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0208 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0218 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0301 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0685 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0810 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0495 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Company - Complainant has to allege in the complaint against the company that the offence has been committed by its Directors, Managers et c. with their consent or connivance or neglect on their part - No such allegation - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of Haryana and another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ 0692 : 1992 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to Company and not to directors - Company not arrayed as accused - Notice to company cannot be deemed to be a notice to the Directors - Issue of notice to the Director of the Company was required as the Director may have in order to avoid his criminal prosecution made payment of the disonoured cheque from the Private source. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of Haryana and another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ 0692 : 1992 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599 #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its Director - Company is maker of the cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to the Company is sufficient - Separate notice to the Director is not required. (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs Debapriya Banerjee), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) : 1992(2) KLT 35 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No averment in the complaint t hat bank dishonoured the cheque for want of adequate funds in the account of the drawer - S.138 is not attracted. (Bhageerathy Vs Beena), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 595 (KERALA): 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0386 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 3946 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petitioner Managing Director of two companies M&S - Liability of company to pay - Cheque however issued by company M who has no liability to pay the amount - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is committed by M. (Krishna Bai Vs Arti Press), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (MADRAS)

#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company - Company not impleaded as accused - Complaint cannot proceed against Managing Director. (Krishna Bai Vs Arti Press), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (MADRAS) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time & again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) followed). (Richard Samson Sherrat Vs State of A.P. & Another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0502 : 1992 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0611 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0023 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0124 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0261 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0150 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 2566 : 1992 (2) APLJ 0027 : 1992 (1) AWR 0502 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petitioner sleeping partner in firm - No allegation of her being incharge of affairs of firm - Summoning order passed against petitioner quashed To make a person liable, it is to be shown that he was incharge or responsible for conduct of business. (Amrit Rani Vs M/s.Malhotra Industrial Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 733 (P&H) : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0193 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0262 : 1992 (1) SLJ 0312 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Payment stopped by drawer - Even then offence is committed if drawer had not sufficient funds in the account - Offence u/s.138 does not depend on the endorsement made by the banker while returning the cheque. (Thomas Varghese Vs Jerome), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (KERALA) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0517 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0288 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0224 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0380 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0919 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 3080 : 1992 (1) KLT 0812 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned as account closed by drawer Penal Provision of S.138 is not attracted. (Om Prakash Bhojraj Maniyar Vs Swati Girish Bhide and others), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (BOMBAY) : 1993(1) BANKING CASES 0099 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0242 : 1992 (3) CRIMES 0306 : (1993) 78 COM. CAS> 0549 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence under - Compoundable. (M.Mohan Reddy Vs Jairaj D.Bhale Rao & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 77 (A.P.) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0531 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0184 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0024 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0333 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1010 : 1996 (1) CCR 0516 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by a partner on behalf of partnership firm - Cheque dishonoured - Notice sent to the partner who issued the cheque Held, notice is valid - It is not the requirement of law to send notice to each of the partners. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Account closed' - Closure of account is not a bar on Magistrate to take cognizance of complaint u/s.138 of the Act. (M/s.G.M.Mittal Stainless Steels Ltd. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd. & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (A.P.) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0737 : 1996 BJ 0253 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0379 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0410 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation - Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission - Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred. (D.Ramamoorthy Vs K.J.Duraisamy), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under S.138 of the Act. (Mohammed Kunhi Vs Abdul Kajeed), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (KERALA) : 1995(2) KLT 900 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is complete when payment is not made in response to the notice within the stipulated time - Court within whose jurisdiction the said tender has to be made also has the jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. (Kirti Dal Udyog, Nagpur Vs Bhanwarlal Ramchandra Chandak), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 157 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (2) CIVIL LJ 0037 : 1996 (2)

BANKING CASES 0192 : 1996 (2) CCR 0706 : 1996 (1) MAH LJ 0164 : 1996 AIHC 0330 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Whether ceased to be a partner - Held, it is not the relevant question which can be gone into in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2022 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Revision against - Dismissed by Sessions Court -Second revision in the High Court - Not maintainable. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2022 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque returned with endorsement `Refer to drawer' or `Instructions for stoppage of payment' or `Stamp exceeds arrangement' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Indian Technologist & Engineers (Electronics) Pvt.Ltd.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (S.C.) : 1996(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 99 (S.C.) : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0593 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1996 BJ 0408 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0082 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1692 : 1996 (4) CCR 0083 : 1996 (2) SCC 0739 : 1996 SCC (CRL.) 0454 : AIR 1996 SC 2339 : 1996 (1) JT 0643 : 1996 (1) LW (CRL.) 0325 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Shall be deemed to be drawn on the date it bears. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount of loan due from accused - Issued 10 post dated cheques - Cheques dishonoured - One complaint in respect of all cheques is maintainable. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused purchasing cutting machine from complainant and issuing post dated cheque - In case of any dispute matter to be referred to arbitration - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Plea of accused that machinery was defective and matter was to be referred to Arbitration - Plea not tenable - Arbitration clause does not cover a criminal offence nor Section 34 Arbitration Act is attracted to criminal proceedings. (Prabir Roy Vs State of West Bengal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 41 (CALCUTTA) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0103 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0308 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0370 : 1996 BJ 0387 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0454 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Territorial jurisdiction For discharging the debt the petitioners had to find out his creditors - Since the creditors had office at Pehowa, the Courts there had territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. (M.M.Malik Vs Prem Kumar Goyal), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0535 : 1991(2) REC CRI R 0015 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0484 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0496 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0425 : 1992 BJ 0412 : 1991 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0157 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 2594 : 1991 (1) PLR 0554 : 1991 (2) CLR 0366 : 1991 (18) CRLT 0097 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint sought that cheque was got issued when petitioner was taken in police custody - This plea not taken by the petitioner in reply to the legal notice - Held, no case is made out of quashing of complaint. (Mahabir Parsad Jindal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 432 (P&H) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Questions of fact or mixed question of law and facts - Cannot be decided merely on the basis of allegations in the petition and affidavits. (M/s.Garg Forgings & Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Cheque presented

through Bank at place `L' - Complaint filed at place `C' alleging that order for supply of goods was placed at place `C' - Remedy available to the petitioner by approaching Judicial Magistrate that process should not have been issued against him not availed - Held, once this remedy is available to the petitioners High Court is reluctant to invoke its inherent powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. which are to be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. (M/s.Garg Forgings & Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant seeking examination of Advocate who sent the reply to notice - Allowed - However, it will be open to the respondent to contend that this reply was not sent at his instance. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Name of witness sought to be examined not mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint - Not a ground for not permitting the complainant to examine this witness. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment - No ground to quash the proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. - Such a plea can be taken before trial Court. (Minakshi Goyal Vs S.K.Sharma), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0165 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0020 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant an executor under the Will of his father - Cannot be tread as the holder in due course. (Koya Moideen Vs Hariharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Payment countermanded by a stop memo - It is of no consequence - Proceedings under the Act can be initiated. (Calcutta Sanitary Wares Vs Jacob), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0347 : 1991(1) KLT 0269 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `Payment stopped by the drawer' - not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due to insufficient balance in the account. (Abdul Samad Managing Director Vs Satya Narayan Mahawar), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 832 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0134 : 1990 (2) CLR 0338 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (Mahadevan Sunil Kumar Vs Bhadran), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (KERALA) : 1991 (1) BANKING CASES 0612 : 1991 (1) BCLR 0211 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0805 : 1993 BJ 0569 : 1991 (1) KLT 0651 : 1991 (1) KLJ 0335 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings - Question of fact involved relating to alleged offence viz whether the accused has to pay the money to the complainant and whether he had issued the cheque as well as other questions of fact had to be established on evidence There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. (P.T.V. Ramanujachari Vs Giridharilal Rathi & Anr.), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (A.P.) : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0591 : 1992 BJ 0388 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso Cl. (a) - Post dated cheque - For the purpose of Cl. (a) of the proviso has to be considered to have been drawn on the date it bears and not on the date it is delivered. (Manoj K.Seth Vs Fernadez), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0449 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0385 : 1992 BJ 0394 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 3253 : 1991 (3) ILR (KER.) 0621 : 1991 (2) KLT 0065 : #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Not valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) overruled). (Kumaresan Vs Ameerappa), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0459 : 1991(3) RCR (CRL.) 0172 : 1991(2) BCLR 0196 : 1993(1) BCLR 0164 : 1991(74) COMP. CASES 0848 : 1992(1) CRIMES 0023 : 1991(1) KLT 0797 : 1992 MWN (CRL.) 0008

#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - If the ingredients of the provision are satisfied Magistrate has necessarily to take cognizance - Magistrate has no right or power to refer it for investigation to the police just like a private complaint filed in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint complying with all the ingredients of Ss. 138 & 142 - Held, there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Closure of account - Does not constitute offence under S.138 of the Act. (Mallikarjun Traders, Sindhanur Vs B.Pandurang Setty & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 617(1) (KARNATAKA) : 1996 ISJ (BANKING) 0456 : 1996 (1) KARLJ 0522

#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount - Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself - Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque without consideration - Onus to prove is on person who asserts so - Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness - Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement

of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only when cheque is received by holder Cheque can be received in many ways i.e it can be handed over, it could be as a finder of a lost or misplaced cheque, it could be taken away by force, it could be by committing theft - Held, for drawing presumption u/s 139 of the Act, Court must be satisfied that the holder of the cheque 'received' the cheque by entitlement and that he did not procure it by any other means. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Presumption available is as to

issuance of cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability - Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Accused need not examine himself to rebut the presumption - He may discharge the burden on the basis of materials already brought on record. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is `preponderance of probabilities' - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Question as to whether presumption stood rebutted or not has to be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record Stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative - Background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Complainant not coming to Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man - Accused thus discharges his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act - Order of acquittal upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof on accused is only mere preponderance of probability - Where in a case complainant fails to prove that he had means to advance a huge amount as he himself had been borrowing money from others, the burden placed on accused stands discharged inspite of the fact that accused himself having not been examined as a witness - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S.C.) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only qua the purpose for which the cheque is received i.e for discharge of a debt or liability - Court cannot presume that cheque is issued/executed/drawn by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan

& Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' - Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank - Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal. (K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.P.) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 :

2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Available only when three conditions are satisfied viz. (1) that the person in whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the cheque; (2) that the cheque is of the nature stated in section 138 of the Act; (3) that such cheques is 'received' by the holder. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Presumption need not be rebutted only by leading defence evidence - Presumption can be rebutted even on the basis of fact elicited in the cross examination of the complainant. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Burden to prove - If the holder of cheque has to avail of the benefit of the presumption under section 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to establish all the pre-requisites for drawing such presumption. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - To draw presumption under Section 139 of the act complainant has to prove execution and issue of cheque - Admission of signature in a cheque goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of the cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of the cheque. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Legally enforceable debt - When issuance of cheque is admitted, presumption shall be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge in whole or part of any debt or any other liability, unless the contrary is proved. (M.G.Brothers Automobiles Ltd. rep. by its General Manager Vs B.Masthan Reddy & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A.P.) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption under Section 139 of the Act - Rebuttal Discharge of burden - To lead evidence is not necessary to discharge the burden - Accused can rely on the broad improbabilities in the case of the prosecution, the improbabilities in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, the acceptability of suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses in the course of cross examination as also defence evidence if any - All circumstances which he as an accused could have relied on to discharge his burden under S.105 of the Evidence Act can be made use of by him to discharge the burden under S.139 of the N.I. Act also. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Available only till contrary is proved by the accused - A fact is said to be proved when the court on a consideration of the matters before it believes in its existence or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to proceed under the circumstances of the particular case on the supposition that such fact exists. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security - Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability - The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque is a promise made in writing to pay certain sum - There is a legally enforceable liability. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT

CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - The standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption - Onus is not as heavy as that of prosecution and may be compared with defendant in Civil Case - Rebuttal of presumption contemplated u/s 139 requires only probable defence and standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were

not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow - Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - 'Debt or liability' - There is presumption in favour of holder of a cheque that the cheque is regarding discharge of the liability - Applicant can rebut the presumption by producing evidence. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Cheque issued on specific understanding that the same can be presented and encashed if the entire loan amount not otherwise paid before the date of cheque - Held, cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Cheque issued - It is to be presumed that it is issued in discharge of a debt or other liability - This presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption u/s 139 - Is rebuttable presumption - To rebut the presumption it is not necessary to lead evidence as the accused can rebut the presumption on the basis of the complaint as well as evidence led by the complainant himself. (Ramesh Ratilal Tanna Vs Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 10 (BOMBAY) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Court has to draw a presumption that the drawer of the cheque has issued the same for legally enforceable debt or liability, unless the contrary is proved. (The Waterbase Ltd. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P.) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Certain payments made after dishonour of cheque - Witness not examined to prove Ex.D-1 to D-6 - As such it is difficult to come to a positive conclusion that amount paid subsequent to the date of issuance of the cheque pertains to the discharge of the cheque amount only. (The Waterbase Ltd. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 : 2005 SCC (CRI.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. LJ 4745 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Issuance of cheque and signatures on cheque admitted - Presumption is there that cheque was issued towards `legally enforceable debt' - However, this presumption is rebuttable for which accused had to produce rebuttable evidence - Mere explanation is not sufficient Accused must give probable or acceptable defence to rebut the presumption. (Smt.Usha Suresh Vs R.V.Shashidaran), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 723 (KARNATAKA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - 'Debt or liability' - Once a cheque is issued by the drawer presumption u/s 139 in favour of holder follows - Drawer has opportunity to rebut the presumption during trial. (Chand Rattan Newar Vs Shayam Rattan Newar), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (P&H) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0138 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Debt or other liability' - There is presumption under S.139 that unless the contrary is proved the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in S.138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. (George Vs Muhammed), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2) KERALA 0833 #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption is to be drawn that cheque was issued towards discharge of antecedent liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing evidence to establish that he did not issue the cheque towards discharge of any antecedent liability. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr. Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Provision gives rise to presumption of fact that the cheque was given in discharge of a debt or liability legally recoverable. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of S.139, a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in S.138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender & Ors.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque - Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri

Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legally enforceable liability - Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused - Held, accused cannot be punished under S.138 of the Act. (A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability - This question is a matter of evidence - Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Holder' - Not intended to cover all kinds of holders - It operates only in favour of payee and holder in due course. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Rebuttable presumption - Not applicable to a holder of cheque without consideration. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138 - There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #10: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption in favour of holder of cheque - There is presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of

cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque - Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138 There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of S.139, a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in S.138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender & Ors.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 :

2005 SCC (CRI.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. LJ 4745 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Resigned before cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence - Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Consisting of two partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm - Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Pleading as to requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in

the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company - No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused summoned being Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company - Held, that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs J.K.Verma & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping director - If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court - A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company - Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court - Petition to quash summoning order dismissed. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint against Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company - It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm - Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner - Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company - In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.)

#17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Joint account of husband and wife Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability - Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque - Held, wife is not liable - Proceedings against wife quashed. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time, the offence was committed - One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act Held, that second proviso to S.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided Accused Nos.5 & 6 discharged. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Petitioner resigned as Director of company - Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.32 - Held, that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S.303(2) of the Companies Act This document is not a public document in terms of S.74 Evidence Act - Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act - Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' - The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial - Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Company Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence - Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - 'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' - Meaning - When Director is also executive, he is an officer with executive powers, charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business - No fault can be found in the complaint. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted - The purpose would be served if the averments, by whatever words used, makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - S.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability - A legal fiction has been created thereby - The statute being a penal one, should receive strict construction - It requires strict compliance of the provision - Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative - Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 :

2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general in nature - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director and Director Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge, consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping Director - Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque - Account attached by Income Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not made out - Complaint quashed. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender - Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)

#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner - Liability - There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company Description should be clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent - Petitioner neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading - There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.),

2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable - There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to

be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice given to company - Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required - Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nominated Director - Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company - IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt. - Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held, even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. - No interference called for. (G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory of cheque - Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, its Chairman, Managing Director and Director - Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company - No evidence except affidavit of complainant - Petitioner did not sign the cheque - Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same - Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company - Summoning of petitioner quashed. (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Sleeping partner - Not liable Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act - To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business. (K.K.Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liable for prosecution despite non prosecution of the Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the company or incharge of its affairs. (Balaji

Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003 - Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 - Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors - Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul Kohli & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against partners - Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured - It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Prosecution of company and directors - Notice to company - It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred, then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company - Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company - For prosecution of Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company - - Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Statutory requirements - Where Court is required to issue summons which

would put the accused to some sort of harassment, Court should insist strict compliance of the statutory requirements. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - No allegation in complaint that cheques were issued with consent or knowledge of Directors - No allegation that Directors were responsible for control of day to day business of company or had active role in issuing cheques - Order of cognizance against Directors quashed. (Madanlal & Ors. Vs Bhanwarlal), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - It is an interim order - It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President of society issued cheque, on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the society - Cheque drawn from personal account of President of society - Held, Society or its Secretary not liable for offence u/s 138 of the Act on dishonour of such a cheque. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President issued cheque from his personal account to discharge a debt or liability of society - Cheque dishonoured - Society or its Secretary cannot be proceeded against, unless it is established that the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the society on an account maintained by the society itself. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time - A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the offence whereas a person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time is liable for the offence, punishable u/s 138 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Company, its directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques - Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not served - Case split up - Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques - Prosecution of company is not sine qua non for prosecution of other persons - If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons cannot on that score escape from penal liability. (K.Chandrasekhar & Anr. Vs Mac Charles India Limited, Bangalore), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 434 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1120 : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 298 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 149 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 867 : 2005(3) ALL MR 15 : 2005(3) BANK CLR 79 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 533 : 2005 BANK J 580 : 2005(2) CIV LJ 861 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 144 : 2005(2) KANT LJ 124 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person incharge and responsible to the company - Quashing

of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole not disclosing commission of an offence or that some of the accused are lawyers and/or other professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of business of the company - Held, the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties and whether allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for adjudication at the trial. (S.V.Muzumdar & Ors. Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW 2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL IND CAS 51 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005 BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125) COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005 CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC 444 : ILR(KANT.) ) 2005 SC 2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ 271 : 2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4) SCJ 503 : 2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1020 : #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership - Partners - Absence of averments in complaint that partners are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm - Order of Magistrate discharging the appellants restored. (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S.C.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935 : 2004(50) ALL CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 : 2004(2) ALT (CRI.) 237 S.C. : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM. CR (CRI.) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ 215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717 : 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61) COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22) IND LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1) MPHT 97 : 2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 : 2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3) REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 : 2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD 22 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed by its officials, the company is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice not given to petitioner who was one of the directors of the company - He had not either drawn or signed the cheque - He was merely a non-executive Director of the Company - He had resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque - It was accused No.2 who was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Chaitan M.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Retired Director who did not function as Director either on date of cheque or when cause of action arose for non payment cannot be prosecuted. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - All the partners cannot be proceed as accused on the assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are responsible for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against as accused. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner resigned and he was not Director either on the date when the cheques were issued or when the cause of action arose - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (S.B.Shankar Vs M/s.Amman Steel Corporation), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 76 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0253

#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors and General Manager - Petitioners alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Obligation as required u/s 141 is discharged - Complaint cannot be quashed - However, petitioners are entitled to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge during trial. (S.C.Chhabra, Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Partners who are not incharge of the firm and are not responsible for the conduct of its business are not liable and cannot be proceeded against. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Accountant - Specific allegation that he is also looking after the affairs of the company - Held, accountant who is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be prosecuted. (Dev Vs State of A.P.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 663 (A.P.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Can be proceeded against only if he was at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - A director cannot be proceed against merely for the reason that he happens to be a director of the company. (Kumari Vs Sankara Raman), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 79 (KERALA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0638 : 2001(2) KLT 503 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 150 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Manager - Filed complaint on behalf of company/firm - No authorisation is required. (S.P.Subramaniam & Ors. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.P.) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Company - When a person is not the incharge of the company and is not responsible for conduct and business of the company, he is not responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Sham Lal, Director, G.S.Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director and Joint Managing Director - By virtue of the office they hold, they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured - Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Provision is in two parts - Sub-section (2) is in addition to sub-section (1) This means that a person who is covered by sub-section (1) of S.141 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly - Besides that, those persons who are covered under subsection (2) of S.141 shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall also liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, in addition to persons who are covered in sub-section (1) of S.141 of the Act. (S.C.Chhabra, Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - A person other than 'company' can be proceeded against if it is shown that he was incharge of and was responsible to the company or the firm for the conduct of its business. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd.), 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (P&H) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - The facts stated in the complaint must disclose commission of an offence by each one of the accused - There must be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself attracting the ingredients of S.138 of the Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint - Allegations made in the complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the complaint on file and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused for the alleged offence The sworn statement and statements recorded on oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on complaint do not form an integral part of the complaint. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Complaint singed by the counsel but not by the complainant - Returned - Complaint filed again when limitation had expired - Complaint not to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the criteria. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint by Recovery Manager who held special power of attorney from Managing Director - No illegality in filing the complaint - Even in the absence of the minutes of the Board, the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise Recovery Manager to launch the prosecution. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque jointly issued by accused Nos.2 and 3, Directors, on behalf of accused No.1 Company in connection with business transaction - Service of demand notice on Company, shall be deemed to be also the service thereof on its Directors. (Arun Hegde Vs M.J.Shetty), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 645 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0708 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Notice - Company - Notice served on Company - Notice shall be deemed to have been served upon Directors of Company. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured - Notice issued to drawer from Delhi but no payment made - Court at Delhi has jurisdiction. (M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen Pareo), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 2001 ALL MR (CRL.) 33 : 2001(1) RCR (CR) 134 (DELHI)

#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person who was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company is liable to be proceeded against - Other Directors can be proceeded against only if it is specifically alleged in complaint that they too participated in commission of offence - Cognizance taken against other Directors in absence of specific allegation against them, is liable to be quashed. (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company a Sick Industrial Unit - It is not a ground to quash complaint u/ss 138, 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Thapar Agro Mills Vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (P&H) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Prosecution of all the five partners of the firm Petitioners had executed power of attorney in favour of one partner - Petitioners not vicariously liable - For holding a person vicariously liable for the offence committed by a Company or a firm it is the actual role played by such a person in the management and conduct of the business of the company or the firm. (Saraswathy Amma Vs M/s Swil Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (DELHI) : 2000(3) REC CRI R 315 : 2000(2) AD (DELHI) 244 : 2000(52) DRJ 261 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that cheque was issued by authorised signatory of Company at instruction of accused who were incharge of day-to-day affairs of company and that they had taken a vital role in issuing cheque - Held, no ground to quash the complaint. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed against Company, Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director - Petitioner alleged to have resigned from post of Director even before issuance of cheque - However, complaint states that Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director are in-charge of and responsible to the company and looking after the day to day affairs of the company Disputed question of fact - To be decided at the trial - Not permissible to go into the questions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed. (Rohinton Noria Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P.) #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Vicarious liability - Complaint against Company, its Chairman, Managing Director, nine Directors and three officers of the Company - Complaint against Chairman and others quashed - Nothing on record to show that there was any act committed by them to draw the inference that they were vicariously liable - As regards Managing Director it could safely be inferred from his duties that he was vicariously liable for the offence. (FMI Investments Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0652 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0013 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0269 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of company must contain factual foundation disclosing their liability - Mere whisper in complaint suggesting their involvement - Not sufficient. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Vicarious liability of Directors - Directors are not liable for prosecution unless it is alleged in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and that cheques were issued with their consent and connivance - Directors are not vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors, Chairman, Manager etc. with clear averment in the complaint that they were responsible for non payment of the amount after receipt of notice within statutory period - Complaint held, maintainable and not liable to be quashed. (Natesha Singh Vs M/s Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt.Ltd.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 98 (MADRAS) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0616 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0295 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0031 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0538 : 2001(2) LW (CRI.) 611 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors - Averment in complaint that accused Nos.2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant - No ground to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sunil Sareen Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0725 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0322 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Non impleading of the other Directors of the Company Contention to be raised at the trial only. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner already resigned at the relevant time Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the petitioner has resigned from the said post of the Company w.e.f. 19.1.1991 - Complainant placed on record a copy of the Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies showing that the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9.7.1997 - Both these forms have been issued by the Registrar of Companies - It is a disputed question of fact - Can only be decided at the trial. (B.C.Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0309 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Cheque issued by Company and signed by one `D' its Managing Director - `D' sought to be prosecuted in his personal capacity - No allegation in the complaint that the offence was committed by the company and that `D' is sought to be prosecuted by virtue of the provision u/s 141 of the Act in his capacity as an officer or the person in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against `D' quashed. (D.Chandra Reddy Vs Ghourisetti Prabhakar & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (A.P.) #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company - Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement, which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused, describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of Company - It is not for complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company - It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that due diligence was taken to prevent such offence. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim made against assets of the company - Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0502 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that petitioners were in-charge of and responsible to the affairs of the company and cheques issued with their consent and knowledge - No ground to quash the complaint - However, it is open to the petitioners to plead always that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, but such proof can be put forth only at the time of trial. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice to company is sufficient compliance - No separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint, before initiating proceedings under the Act. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A.P.)

#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Should be sent to the drawer of the cheque and not to all the persons who can be deemed to be liable apart from the drawer of the cheque by virtue of the provision in S.141 of the Act. (K.Pannir Selvam Vs M.M.T.C.Ltd. & Anr.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Sole proprietorship concern - Complaint filed against firm instead of proprietor - Sole proprietorship concern is not a judicial person to come under Criminal Prosecution - Receipt of notice by any other person may not be acceptable and valid acknowledgment of notice - Complaint is liable to be quashed. (Anas Industries Vs Suresh Bafna), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 701 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0532 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0486 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Complaint against accused only without impleading the firm - Complaint is maintainable - Unless it is established that the firm alone was liable to discharge the liability, the complainant could not be compelled to add the firm as accused. (Saravanan Vs G.Sampath), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (MADRAS) #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint filed by Manager of the Company - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that Manager was neither drawee nor holder in due course - No ground to quash the complaint - Factual points to be decided by trial Court. (M/s M.B.Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Officer of Quasi Govt. Company issuing cheque on behalf of Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against signatory only without impleading Company - Complaint is not maintainable - Complaint quashed. (S.Ramasamy Vs T.Ayyappa), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (MADRAS) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Cheque dishonoured - Notice to the firm demanding payment - Petitioner who is a partner of the firm arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of S.141 of the Act Contention that notice not given to the petitioner - Held, notice to the company is sufficient compliance of S.138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (A.P.) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice sent to partnership firm - Complaint against partnership firm and its two partners - Notice need not to be given to each and every partner - Every person who is incharge of and is responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly - No illegality in summoning the partners as it is asserted in the complaint that both the partners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #9: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Notice - Partnership firm - Every partner incharge and responsible for conduct of firm is guilty - Such person is presumed to have knowledge about the day to day business of the firm - Every partner need not to be given notice - Notice to firm is sufficient as no person other than the drawer of the cheque is required to be given notice. (Bhavesh Bharatbhai Mehta & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (GUJARAT) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company - No allegations in the complaint that Directors of the Company were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the alleged commission of the offence - Vague allegations that cheques were issued with consent, knowledge and connivance of Directors - Cannot be said that Directors were actually incharge and responsible for conduct of business - Proceedings against Directors - Liable to be quashed. (P.Ravinder Reddy Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (A.P.) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0764 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0326 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0004 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Accused No.2 is the Director, Accused No.3 is the Managing Director and Accused No.4 is an Executive Director of the Company - It is stated in the complaint that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the accused Nos.2 to 4 - Held, it is sufficient to make an allegation in the complaint with regard to the liability of the accused - Whether they are actually liable or not will have to be considered through evidence. (Girish K.Bhandari & Anr. Vs Lakshmi Finance & Industrial Corp. Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR

(A.P.) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0029 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0460 #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Except for the bald statement that they are Directors, there is no evidence to show that at the time of commission of offence they were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Held, complaint against such Directors quashed. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director - Criminal proceedings against the Company and against the Managing Director and two directors - Charge sought to be quashed by the two Directors - No averment in the complaint or preliminary evidence that both the Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and offence was committed by them - Charge against the two directors quashed. (Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra Vs M/s N.K.Metals), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (DELHI) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0287 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0368 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0181 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4383 : (1998)75 DLT 155 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of the offence - Nothing in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company - Complaint qua petitioners quashed. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director - Held, without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partners - No allegation that respondents No.3 & 4 were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help the complainant - If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No.3 & 4 - Held, Magistrate is not right in summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes of law. (Tara Chand & Ors. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who signed the cheque - Company going into liquidation - Company discharged - Directors who signed the cheque cannot escape the criminal liability - Protection of S.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act prevail over the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Sleeping director - Cannot be prosecuted - Onus is on the complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner - Proceedings against the petitioner quashed. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (CALCUTTA) #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed in the name of Company through Administrative manager who has signed the complaint - No special authority is required - Question of authorisation arises only if the complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice issued to company - Company not made an accused - Complaint filed against directors only - Directors even if not alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well be supplied at the trial by adducing evidence - Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of the Act is a matter of evidence - It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the company alone and no notice was issued to the

directors thereof - Further it is also a matter of evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a notice to the directors of the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would matter - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (T.P.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Company includes firm - Prosecution can be launched either against company alone, or person in charge of affairs of company alone, or both together - Firm when prosecuted alongwith partner who had signed the cheque - Held, there is no irregularity. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that accused are active and responsible Directors of the Company - Prayer to quash complaint declined. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Payment of Rs.20 lacs after institution of complaint - Complainant not yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque - Prayer of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question of fact. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued with consent of directors of Company Cheque dishonoured - Prima facie offence against directors is made out - No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea that complaint did not disclose that accused were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. (K.Subramanian & Ors. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0660 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issue by servant - Amounts to issuing of cheque by the principal. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0277 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Presented for the second time - Again dishonoured - Notice issued - Payment not made within time - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs Damodar Prasad Gupta), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRI. LR (RAJASTHAN) 0847 : 1998(2) CIVIL LJ 0067 : 1997(3) RCR(CRL.) 0216 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 0433 : 1998(94) COMP. CASES 0797 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1545 : 1997(2) CCR 0503 : 1997 CRI LR (RAJ) 0185 : 1997 RAJ CRI 0391 : 1997 (2) RAJ LW 0726 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - Prosecution of Chairman alone without impleading the Company - Complaint is maintainable - Under S.141, the Company and the person who is incharge and responsible to Company for conduct of its business are both liable for punishment, but there is no requirement that both of them should be prosecuted - Their liability is independent - Each of them is independently liable for punishment. (R.Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (A.P.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0470 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR 0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0169 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured fourth time - Complaint is maintainable - Held, if cheque is presented again and again, the cause of prosecute subsists but if notice has been issued thereafter, re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause. (Sunil Behal Vs Bliagwat Dayal Gupta & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power - of - attomey holder Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to

the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint filed against partners of firm and firm not made a party - Complaint is maintainable. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1102 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - It is permissible. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1102 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' - No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Specific averment as to persons responsible for conduct of its business not made - However, certain officials of the company arrayed as accused Absence of such averments in the complaint not material - Prosecution against Company and/or other individual officials named therein cannot be quashed. (N.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0482 #12: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its Director - Company is maker of the cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to the Company is sufficient - Separate notice to the Director is not required. (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs Debapriya Banerjee), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) : 1992(2) KLT 35 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint sought to be quashed on the plea that petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one of its Directors - Not brought on record so far Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him. (Rajan Kinnerkar Vs Eric Cordeiro), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0462 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors of the company sought quashment of complaint on the plea that they were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company - Held, as there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioners that they are incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, complaint and summoning order quashed. (Sushil Singla Vs Haripal Singh), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 267 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0225 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - There is no provision in the Act that Company has also to be prosecuted alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the Company - Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the person who issued the cheque. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Proprietary concern - Complaint against - Not maintainable - Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only. (Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL.) 0347 : 1992(36) MLJ 102 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director, Manager, Secretary etc. - Even if not incharge and not responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, liability under the provision arises if the offence was committed with his consent, connivance or due to his negligence. (Mrs.Manju Podar & Anr. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0655 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI R 1446 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - If the person committing an offence is a company then every person who was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and so also the company. (Mrs.Manju Podar & Anr. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0655 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI R 1446 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - Persons incharge of and responsible to company for conduct of its business can alone be prosecuted irrespective of whether Company is prosecuted or not. (N.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0482 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed - Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim made against assets of the company Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0502 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company - Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement, which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused, describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of Company - It is not for complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company - It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that due diligence was taken to prevent such offence. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured - Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC

(CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director and Joint Managing Director By virtue of the office they hold, they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.) #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3)

CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142-- - Proviso to S.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint - Complaint quashed - S.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S.C.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the

proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H)

#14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process - Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation - Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142-- - Proviso to S.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint - Complaint quashed

- S.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S.C.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)

#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process - Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation - Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491

#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142-- - Proviso to S.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint - Complaint quashed - S.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S.C.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(a)-- - Cheque in favour of a Limited Company - Dishonoured Company filed complaint through its authorised representative - Complaint is maintainable. (C.B.S.Gramaphone Records and Tapes (India) Ltd. Vs Noorudeen), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 838 (KERALA) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0074 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0033 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0494 : 1992 BJ 0522 : 1992 (2) MWN (CRL.) 0160 : 1991(2) KLT 0265 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(a)-- - Complaint without signatures of complainant - A defective complaint - Defective complaint not liable to be thrown out automatically - Complaint to be returned to be represented by curing the defect - Presentation of complaint shall be deemed to be presentation when it is represented by curing the defect. (P.Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A.P.) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(a)-- - Complaint - Without signatures of complainant - Returned for curing the defect - Complaint shall be deemed to be presented only when it is represented by signing it - If by that time limitation has expired then complaint is barred by limitation. (P.Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A.P.) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(a)-- - Complaint - To be made in writing - Complaint without signatures of complainant - Cannot be treated as a 'Complaint made in writing by the payee'. (P.Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr.), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A.P.) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be made - Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142 - Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissed for default - Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday - Notice not issued to the parties - Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear - Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice - Order set aside - Case restored. (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Post dated cheque - Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring

in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located - It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs State-Delhi Administration), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint should contain allegations of the ingredients of the offence. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.138 not fulfilled - Complaint and the summoning order quashed. (Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0258 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140

#15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money, i.e. the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation - Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission - Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred. (D.Ramamoorthy Vs K.J.Duraisamy), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint complying with all the ingredients of Ss. 138 & 142 - Held, there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No offence is made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142-- - Cheque when presented more than one time - Limitation - Period of limitation for filing complaint be taken Into consideration from last date of dishonour and not from first date of dishonour. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds - Notice not issued Cheque presented again - No illegality - Complaint is maintainable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #2: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 - However, if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 - Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment - Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice - Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss.138, 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid - But only one complaint is maintainable - Repeated, multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque - Not permissible. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL

COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #7: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' - Cheque presented for collection at place `J' - Cheque dishonoured - Held, courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power - of - attomey holder Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque issued by the attorney - Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right - In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Agreement to sell - Non payment of the balance amount in time - Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received - Three cheques issued - Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured - Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi, cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction - Agreement denied by the complainant - Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, which ever is earlier - Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days - When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid - Complaint u/s 138 quashed. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' - Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No illegality - Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him - It is violative of S.200 - Defect is, however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint - Date given in notice which has been exhibited - Held, there is no deficiency in complaint.

(Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice Dt.10.6.1992 - On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6 - If the notice is dispatched on 13.6.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.S.Selvamani), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time - Complaint filed on that basis - Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent on 23.4.1992 received on 25.4.1992 - Complaint tiled on 3.6.1992 - Held, complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9.5.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10.5.1992. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0510

#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment, has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others - Validity - At stage of issuing process, not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case - In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned - Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable. (Steel Authority of India, Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0040 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3372 #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Pleading - Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability - Held, if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of limitation - Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on 15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney - Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf - Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband - Held, authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney - Complaint not property instituted, hence quashed. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #6: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed - Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured - Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138 on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Notice given on 26.3.1998 - Cause of action arose on 11.4.1998 - Complaint filed on 8.5.1998 - Not barred by limitation. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director - Held, without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times during period of its

validity - Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice - Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right - Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s 138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay - Condonation - Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 - Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter - Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred - Provisions of Ss.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. (C.Kalegouda Vs K.Sadashivappa), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0086 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Limitation - Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action - This being a special provision, the general provisions of S.468 Cr.P.C. regarding limitation not applicable. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468). (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0058 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint and civil suit pending - Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured - Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife - Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party - Cheque dishonoured Complaint filed by original payee - Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. (H.L.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0678 #20: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - 15 days period - First day of receipt of notice has to be

excluded. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3751 #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409, 420 & 463 etc. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself - Quashment of counter complaint sought - Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding - Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law - Proceedings of counter complaint quashed. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' - No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank, New Delhi - Presented through bank at Chandigarh - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0638 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant - Magistrate can accept the complaint. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0064 #1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured - Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138 on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #3: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Delay - Condonation - Court can condone delay on the

strength of affidavit of complainant and not on the strength of affidavit of counsel. (Muraleedharan Vs Sreeram Investment Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (KERALA) : 2006(1) KLT 131 : ILR 2005(4) KER. 604 : (2006) 129 COM CAS 465 (KER) : 2006(39) AIC 894 (KER) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Amendment of the proviso - Constitutional validity Mere a discretion has been given to Magistrate to consider an application for condonation of delay - It has not created a new offence but has merely regulated the procedure of taking cognizance by the Magistrate - Such a regulation of procedure does not change the nature of the offence with which the accused is tried nor does it create new offence - It is not prohibited by Art.20(1) of Constitution of India. (R.K.Chawla & Anr. Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Delay Condonation - Amended proviso which gave discretion to Court to condone delay in filing complaint is applicable when case was still pending. (R.K.Chawla & Anr. Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(c)-- - Pleading - Just because the complaint does not contain the averment that, that Court has jurisdiction, itself is not sufficient to hold that the complaint is liable to be rejected. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B.Rangappa), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Complaint - Must be in writing and signed by the complainant. (M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - If there is a delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after hearing the respondent Court should satisfy itself as to whether complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the specified period - A detailed inquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - An application or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary - Sufficient cause can be shown in the complaint itself or in the application for condonation of delay or in the affidavit, if any, or in other materials which would be sufficient to satisfy the Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence - Permissible by way of affidavit - Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.I. Act, Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.200 Cr.P.C. and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavit in support thereof - Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner, Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation, S.Kota), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A.P.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. can be given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA)

#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - A close reading of these sections reveal that they relate to post cognizance operation and never treat to the pre-cognizance stages. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #8: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - Provisions of Sections 145 and 146 N.I. Act are not mandatory in nature and option has been left open for the parties to take recourse to these provisions or to the normal provisions contemplated under the Cr.P.C. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Accused cannot adduce evidence by examining himself on affidavit. (Thanaiya Vs Balasamy Nadar), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 475 (MADRAS) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 48 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Recording statement of complainant - Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S.145 in the NI Act - Affidavit of complainant can be filed - However, it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the complainant if he considers it necessary. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #11: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavits - For the purpose of issuing process, evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit and can be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding - Court on application of prosecution or accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Provision of S.145 applies to all complaints pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force - There is nothing in the Amending Act to indicate that the provision is intended to apply only prospectively. (Indraprastha Holdings Ltd. Vs Vijay J.Shah & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (BOMBAY) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 574 : AIR 2006 NOC 228 (BOM) : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 259 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 203 : 2006(1) AIRBOMR 132 : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 7 SOC : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 548 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 321 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 3007 : 2006 BANKJ 536 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 81 : 2006(3) CIVLJ 692 : 2006(1) MAHLJ 11 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Affidavit - Witness has to be called for cross examination when an application u/s 145(2) is filed - After cross-examination, Court can allow re-examiantion, if necessary. (M/s Indo International Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Examination-in-chief of complainant can be given on affidavit - If once affidavit is given then examination-in-chief need not to be recorded again - Accused thereafter, if so requires, may request Court to call complainant for cross examination. (Harischandra Biyani Vs Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 323 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 920 NOC : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 537 : 2006(2) AIRJHAR(NOC) 647 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 425 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 466 : 2006

ALLMR(CRI) 1114 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 264 : 2006(3) CURCRIR 282 : 2006(4) MAHLJ 381 #15: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Provision of S.145 of the Act is retrospective in operation and is applicable to cases pending before the provision came into force. (Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs State of W.B & Ors.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (CALCUTTA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145(2), 138-- - Affidavits - Evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of accused and defence witnesses can be taken on affidavit - In case evidence is taken on affidavit then after an application is made by other party under sub-section (2) of S.145, it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed - On filing of an application u/s 145(2) witness must be made available for cross examination by the rival party. (M/s Indo International Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Recording statement of complainant - Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S.145 in the NI Act - Affidavit of complainant can be filed - However, it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the complainant if he considers it necessary. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavits - For the purpose of issuing process, evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit and can be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding - Court on application of prosecution or accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.) #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - A close reading of these sections reveal that they relate to post cognizance operation and never treat to the pre-cognizance stages. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #2: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - Provisions of Sections 145 and 146 N.I. Act are not mandatory in nature and option has been left open for the parties to take recourse to these provisions or to the normal provisions contemplated under the Cr.P.C. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in revision - Offence under Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence - Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties compromised during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147 of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted - Accused making payment of cheque - Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground - Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement - In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case, Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.P.Heavy Machinery & Engg.Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.P.) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Compromise and compounding - Not synonyms - Any dispute can be compromised between the parties if the terms are not illegal - But only a compoundable offence allowed by law can be compounded. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Offences under the Act committed prior to insertion of S.147 are compoundable - However, provision is not applicable to concluded matters. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Scope - Provision of S.147 of the Act only removes the prohibition

in Cr.P.C. against compounding offences not mentioned in the tables in S.320(1) and (2). (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable when appeal or revision is pending. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Compounding of offence - There is no provision under S.320 Cr.P.C. or Negotiable Instruments Act to accept or permit compounding after conviction has become final and no appeal or revision is pending against conviction. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - High Court cannot reverse, alter or modify conviction which has become final by its own order passed in a revision petition, by using power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. taking note of subsequent events like compounding of the case. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Parties compromised during pendency of revision petition in High Court - In view of Section 147 of the Act complainant permitted to compound the offence and order of conviction and sentence set aside and complainant ordered to be acquitted. (Ami Lal Vs Mahavir Prasad Surendra Mohan), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 479 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 69 : AIR 2007 NOC 92 (RAJ.) : 2006(1) ALJ(EE) 41 : 2006(1) ALLMR 1 JS 1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 117-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Drawee is entitled to compensation - Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law remedy for recovery of amount covered by cheque. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) 1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(1)-- - Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument - Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque - Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course - Under Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 124, 5, 6, 7-- - Pay order - Is not a cheque - Dishonour of pay order Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount - Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of

pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself - Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque without consideration - Onus to prove is on person who asserts so - Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness - Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan

denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally

upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' - Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank - Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal. (K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.P.) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)

#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability - This question is a matter of evidence - Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legally enforceable liability - Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused - Held, accused cannot be punished under S.138 of the Act. (A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.) #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow - Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765

(BOMBAY) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of List-I (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANK #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 140-- - `Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under S.138 - S.140 which excludes the defence that the drawer had no reason to believe that the cheque issued by him may be dishonoured on presentment not unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for

and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Pleading as to requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Consisting of two partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm - Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company - No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused summoned being Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company - Held, that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs J.K.Verma & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping director - If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court - A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company - Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court - Petition to quash summoning order dismissed. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint against Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company - It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Resigned before

cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence - Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm - Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner - Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company - In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.) #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Joint account of husband and wife Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability - Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque - Held, wife is not liable - Proceedings against wife quashed. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time, the offence was committed - One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act Held, that second proviso to S.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided Accused Nos.5 & 6 discharged. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Petitioner resigned as Director of company - Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.32 - Held, that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S.303(2) of the Companies Act This document is not a public document in terms of S.74 Evidence Act - Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act - Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' - The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial - Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Company Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence - Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other -

Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted - The purpose would be served if the averments, by whatever words used, makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - 'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' - Meaning - When Director is also executive, he is an officer with executive powers, charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business - No fault can be found in the complaint. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - S.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability - A legal fiction has been created thereby - The statute being a penal one, should receive strict construction - It requires strict compliance of the provision - Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative - Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general in nature - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director and Director Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge, consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping Director - Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque - Account attached by Income Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act

is not made out - Complaint quashed. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender - Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner - Liability - There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company Description should be clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent - Petitioner neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading - There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5)

SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5)

SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice given to company - Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required - Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nominated Director - Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company - IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt. - Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held, even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. - No interference called for. (G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory of cheque - Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, its Chairman, Managing Director and Director - Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company - No evidence except affidavit of complainant - Petitioner did not sign the cheque - Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same - Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be

held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company - Summoning of petitioner quashed. (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable - There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed by its officials, the company is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003 - Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 - Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors - Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul Kohli & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against partners - Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured - It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Prosecution of company and directors - Notice to company - It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174

#21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred, then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company - Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company - For prosecution of Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company - - Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - It is an interim order - It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Sleeping partner - Not liable Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act - To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business. (K.K.Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power - of - attomey holder - Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' - No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him - Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director - Held, without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI)

#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Summoning order on basis of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.) #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake

quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala - For an offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor - Agreement entered into within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Project for which the supply of stone chips and transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made - Held, Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 107 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) : 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 194 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 1683 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 : 2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 : 2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 : 2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 : 2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS 390 : 2006(4) COMLJ 419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP) SC 484 : 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR (KANT #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file complaint on account of dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075 #20: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 9 - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 12 (2) - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - In computing the period of limitation in any suit etc. the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal etc. - Same principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Rules of limitation Act and General clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #21: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice dated 9.7.1990 sent on 11.7.1990 - Even if it is taken that it was served on 12.7.1990 then date 12.7.1990 is to be excluded and the accused

was required to make the payment upto 27.7.1990 - Cause of action accrues on 28.7.1990 - Date 28.7.1990 is to be excluded for counting period of one month - Complaint filed on 27.8.1990 is well within time. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not signed by complainant but signed by counsel - There is no requirement of law that complaint must be signed and presented by the complainant himself - Pleader in whose favour Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case and to conduct, prosecute or defend the same. (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.) #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Complaint - Cognizance taken - Plea of accused that he did not receive notice - Court rejected recall petition - On request of complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant pleaded that on verification he ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice - Presumption of service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and not to the opposite party and moreover accused himself has stated that he did not receive the notice which was conceded to by the complainant - Held, since no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is maintainable. (A.Gangadhar Vs K.Prasad), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity but it will not give fresh cause of action every time - Cause of action accrues only when notice is given and drawer fails to make the payment - Cause of action arises only once. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Notice given on 26.3.1998 - Cause of action arose on 11.4.1998 - Complaint filed on 8.5.1998 - Not barred by limitation. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Company - Directors - Where allegations made against directors prima facie constitute offence, complaint is maintainable - It is for a particular director to show that he was not incharge of affairs of company when offence alleged was committed. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Police report - Cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Fine equivalent to amount of cheque imposed - Order set aside - Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Magistrate can however award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Duly constituted power of attorney can file complaint - There is no specific bar under the provisions of S.142 of the Act for filing a complaint by the special power of attorney. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction and cause of action - Distinction - Cause of action is something quite different from jurisdiction - Cause of action must restrict itself to time whereas jurisdiction is a situs. (M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen Pareo), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING)

0103 : 2001 ALL MR (CRL.) 33 : 2001(1) RCR (CR) 134 (DELHI) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint under S.142 - Examination of the complainant is necessary It is incumbent on the Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, to satisfy himself as to the veracity of the complainant - Dispensation of taking sworn statement will be in contravention of S.200 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.200) (Harihara Iyer Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 360 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0268 : 2000(1) KLT 100 : 2001 BANK J 633 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint without signatures - Complaint returned - Complaint with signatures of complainant represented - Complaint shall be deemed to be filed when represented with signatures Complaint when represented was not within time of accrual of cause of action - Proceedings quashed. (M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Limitation - Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action - This being a special provision, the general provisions of S.468 Cr.P.C. regarding limitation not applicable. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468). (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0058 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others - Validity - At stage of issuing process, not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case - In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned - Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable. (Steel Authority of India, Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0040 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3372 #11: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Pleading - Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability - Held, if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant company ceased to exist on its merger with another company - Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against drawer - Criminal liability of drawer is not obliterated by merger of companies. (Sannidhi Agencies Vs Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (KARNATAKA) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0421 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney - Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf - Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband - Held, authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney - Complaint not property instituted, hence quashed. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party - Cheque dishonoured Complaint filed by original payee - Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. (H.L.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0678 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times during period of its validity - Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice - Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right - Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s

138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay - Condonation - Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 - Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter - Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred - Provisions of Ss.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. (C.Kalegouda Vs K.Sadashivappa), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0086 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant - Magistrate can accept the complaint. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0064 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment, has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured - Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife - Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of limitation - Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on 15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1

#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent on 23.4.1992 received on 25.4.1992 - Complaint tiled on 3.6.1992 - Held, complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9.5.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10.5.1992. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0510 #2: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409, 420 & 463 etc. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself - Quashment of counter complaint sought - Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding - Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law - Proceedings of counter complaint quashed. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank, New Delhi - Presented through bank at Chandigarh - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0638 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint and civil suit pending - Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY) #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, which ever is earlier - Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days - When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 - Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment - Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice - Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss.138, 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 - However, if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid - But only one complaint is maintainable - Repeated, multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque - Not permissible. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688 #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' - Cheque presented for collection at place `J' - Cheque dishonoured - Held, courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) :

1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #12: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - 15 days period - First day of receipt of notice has to be excluded. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3751 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Agreement to sell - Non payment of the balance amount in time - Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received - Three cheques issued - Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured - Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi, cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction - Agreement denied by the complainant - Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid - Complaint u/s 138 quashed. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice Dt.10.6.1992 - On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6 - If the notice is dispatched on 13.6.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint - Date given in notice which has been exhibited - Held, there is no deficiency in complaint. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds - Notice not issued Cheque presented again - No illegality - Complaint is maintainable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him - It is violative of S.200 - Defect is, however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.S.Selvamani), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1)

BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time - Complaint filed on that basis - Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque issued by the attorney - Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right - In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be made - Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142 - Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.138 not fulfilled - Complaint and the summoning order quashed. (Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0258 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissed for default - Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday - Notice not issued to the parties - Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear - Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice - Order set aside - Case restored. (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Post dated cheque - Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located - It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs State-Delhi Administration), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint should contain allegations of the

ingredients of the offence. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' - Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No illegality - Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money, i.e. the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation - Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission - Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred. (D.Ramamoorthy Vs K.J.Duraisamy), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint complying with all the ingredients

of Ss. 138 & 142 - Held, there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No offence is made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured - Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138 on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #3: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA)

#1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 143-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summary procedure of trial is to be followed - Ss.262 to 265 Cr.P.C. will be applicable for summary trial which cannot be converted in warrant trial in view of Ss.4 & 5 of Cr.P.C. (Steel Tubes of India Vs Steel Authority of India), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (M.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (M.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1988 : 2006(4) ALJ 679 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 602 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 573 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 219 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 229 : 2006(4) ICC 305 : 2006(1) JAB LJ 440 : 2006(1) MPLJ 194 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 143-- (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.143 of the Act. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence - Permissible by way of affidavit - Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.I. Act, Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.200 Cr.P.C. and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavit in support thereof - Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner, Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation, S.Kota), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A.P.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. can be given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147 of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted - Accused making payment of cheque - Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground - Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement - In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case, Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.P.Heavy Machinery & Engg.Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.P.) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties compromised during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and

227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in revision - Offence under Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence - Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 151-- - Registered society - Dishonour of cheque - Offence committed by a registered society - Every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the society for the conduct of the business of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated cheque - When a drawer deliver a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right, that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument - Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 25-- - Cheque period expiring on a public holiday - Cheque shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself - Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file a complaint. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 42-- - Re-presentation of cheque after lodging complaint - Held, it is open to drawee to present dishonoured cheque again and again to bank during validity period of cheque, even after

lodging complaint. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K.Ravindranath Shetty), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money - Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 50-- - 'A holder in due course' - Means a person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount became payable - Unless contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 ALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 72-- - Cheque presented within six months but reached Drawee's bank after six months - Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficient funds - Held, offence u/s 138 is made out. (Jogy David Vs Babu), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0178 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0753 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0711 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0319 : 1998 (1) KLT 0038 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However, subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 9-- - A bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party - Presentation of the cash cheque not by the complainant but by another person - It is of no consequence. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 9-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Purchaser of cheque is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the purchaser. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17 --- Written statement - Amendment - At appellate stage - Suit for specific performance on basis of oral agreement - Cheque issued by vendee for Rs.5 lacs - Amendment in written statement sought that cheque was issued as security for loan taken by vendee from vendor - Amendment does not change nature of suit - Amendment allowed. (Chandra Prakash Vs The Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (RAJASTHAN) (DB) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.37, R.3 --- Leave to defend - Loan given through a loan agreement and a promissory note - Loan amount given by way of cheque - Petitioner to furnish security instead of bank guarantee. (Avtar Singh Vs Singh Finance), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 --- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint - Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Business dealing - Cheque alleged to be towards outstanding dues - Account books not produced by complainant - Contention of accused that cheque was issued as security believed - Conviction set aside. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 :

2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable - Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee - Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act. (Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #9: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint - Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque issued as security for transaction between the parties - When blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority to the person, to whom it is issued, to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to Bank - On dishonour of cheque accused is not absolved of the liability. (Moideen Vs Johny), 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 220 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 542 (NOC) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by way of security - Plea that dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability - There was interpolation in amount written in numbers - Fact of interpolation corroborated by expert evidence - Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving satisfactory reasons for disbelieving fact of interpolation - Set aside - Matter remanded for decision afresh. (Sudhir Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc. etc.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S.C.) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of debt - It is a negotiable instrument - Dishonour of cheque - Drawer of cheque incurs liability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. (S.T.P. Limited, Bangalore Vs Usha Paints & Decorators, Bangalore & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA) #14: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- `Any debt or other liability' - Complainant giving a debt of Rs.15 lacs to accused - Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt - Dishonour of cheques - No criminal offence under S.138 is made out - Cheques were issued as collateral security by accused and not to discharge any existing debt - Case is of civil nature. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL

COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque if issued for security or for any other purpose the same does not come within the purview of S.138 of the Act. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Post dated cheque - Used for second contract whereas given for first contract - First contract successfully completed - Parties having good relations - Second contract entered into between the parties - Hardly any gap between the two contracts - Held, it is plausible and believable on the face of it that the accused could tell the complainant to treat the earlier unused cheque as security for the second contract - Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs P.E.C. Limited), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Post dated cheque - Given as security - Payment not made as promised - Post dated cheque itself becomes payable - Cheque dishonoured - Accused liable to prosecution. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs P.E.C. Limited), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Cheque issued as a collateral security - Dishonour of cheque - Even collateral security becomes a debt or liability on the part of accused to perform his contract - The very issuance of cheque presumes that it was issued for discharge of liability. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Cheque given as security - Cheque bounced - Comes within fold of S.138 of N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Blank cheque - When given towards liability or even as security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if cheque is filled up and presented to bank, person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid liability under section 138 of N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Security - Loan taken - Agreement executed to repay loan within six months and cheque issued as security to be encashed in case of failure to pay loan amount - Loan not paid - Cheque which had been issued as security transforms itself into a cheque representing liability in terms of agreement - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- `Debt or liability' - Whether cheque was issued as security or discharge of liability is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.

(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security - Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability - The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.37 --- Leave to defend - Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque - Defence that the amount was not actually due as claimed and could have been settled by settling the accounts and that the cheque was forged by the plaintiff for which defendant has lodged an FIR - Even if defence is illusory, yet the leave to defend can be granted on such conditions so as to protect the interest of the plaintiff - Leave granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount in the Court and furnishing security for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Court. (M/s I.J.Transport Company Vs M/s Ganga Auto Agency), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (P&H) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 --- The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- An undated cheque handed over as security for the purpose of the contract - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of S.138 does not apply - There was no debt or liability when cheque was handed over to the drawee. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Cheque issued as a security to make payment of the liability of another company - Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of liability of any other person, it amounts to a liability which has been undertaken by the drawer of the cheque. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0557 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- When a cheque is issued as a security, no complaint lies under S.138 of the Act. (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0323 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Security - Undated cheque issued as security - Subsequently there was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant - Accused issued 36 fresh cheques - Default in payment of instalments - Complainant entered the date on the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim the amount - Held, cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. Vs M/s NCC Finance Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)

#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Signed blank cheque - Defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently suspicious - Burden rests heavily on shoulders of account holder to claim absolution from culpable liability. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory - Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount - Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Misutilisation of blank signed cheque Sending cheque to handwriting expert - Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution - Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Signature in cheque - Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution - By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - An implied authority is given to the holder of cheque to fill up the columns therein when a blank cheque duly signed is given - If holder of cheque fills up date and amount by words and figures then it does not amount to any offence - It is not a case of forgery an fabrication. (Chinthala Cheruvu & Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.P.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 391 (A.P.) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security - Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability - The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA)