Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 300

#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 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.)

#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 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)

#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 pre-
supposes 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 pre-
supposes 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 pre-
supposes 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 - Mis-
description 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 Co-
op. 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 non-
bailable 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 Co-
operative 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 re-
presented 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 non-
availability 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 Co-
Operative 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 in-
charge 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