Last Updated on June 30, 2020 by Satish Mishra
This post is a Judgement digest of Cheque Bounce case after reading which you will be able to know where to file your case in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Baltana in case Cheque Bounces and you are not able to recover your money back from the accused. Though the position is settled now regarding the jurisdiction of cheque bounce cases but still one should be expected to know the entire process.
Also Read- Get Accused Arrested in Cheque Bounce Cases
Sri. Govindareddy v. Mrutunjaya
Facts: complainant states that defendant and he were friends knowing each other from last two years. The accused demanded from him sum of rupees 2,00,000 as loan which was given by the complainant and accused promised to return the amount within two months the Accused neither failed to return back nor give any intimation of repaying the loan borrowed by him, hence he had to approached the Accused and reminded him for a loan borrowed,he tried to postpone it but after several demands on 12.12.2018, the Accused has came to Bengaluru and issued one cheque bearing No.351556 dated: 12.12.2018 for Rs.2 Lakhs, drawn on Canara Bank, Chitradurga Branch, because of insufficient fund in account the cheque bounced/discharged.
Issues: Is the defendant liable under sec 138 of negotiable instruments act 1881 .
Held: the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Also Read- Criminal Revision Cheque Bounce High Court Chandigarh
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,15,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (3) three months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. Further acting U/sec. 357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution expenses to the state.
Also Read- Consequences of a Cheque Bounce Case
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd.
Facts: M/s. Galaxy trades and agencies ltd. purchased cement from Dalmia cement worth Rs.9,13,353.84 payment of which was made through cheque on 26th May, 1998 which was drawn on Karur Vysa Bank Ltd., Ernakulam Branch. When presented for collection, the cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The information regarding non payment of cheque amount was communicated on 2.06.1998 by the bank to complainant. On 13.06.1998 the notice was sent to the respondent calling upon m/s galaxy trades and agencies ltd. To pay the amount within 15 days. After few days respondent asked to mail the notice as it was said by him that he received the blank envelope. This lead to complainant again presented the cheque again on 1.7.1998 to the drawee bank through their bankers. The cheque was again dishonoured by the drawee bank on 2.7.1998. A registered statutory notice was issued to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and the payment was demanded. The accused received the said notice on 27.7.1998 but did not make the payment. According to the complainant, the accused on 6.7.1998 sent a registered cover to its Ernakulam office which contained some waste newspaper bits. As despite dishonour of the cheque and receipt of notice, the cheque amount was not paid, the appellant filed the complaint on 9th September, 1998, admittedly, within the statutory period from the second notice.’
Also Read- Bail in Cheque Bounce Cases
The object behind enactment of section 138 of negotiable instruments Act 1881
The Supreme Court in the case while stressing on the object behind enactment of Section 138 of NI Act stated that the provision was incorporated with a specified object of making a special provision by incorporating a strict liability so far as the cheque, a negotiable instrument, is concerned. The law relating to negotiable instrument is the law of commercial world legislated to facilitate the activities in trade and commerce making provision of giving sanctity to the instruments of credit which could be deemed to be convertible into money and easily passable from one person to another. In the absence of such instruments, including a cheque, the trade and commerce activities, in the present day would, are likely to be adversely affected as it is impracticable for the trading community to carry on with it the bulk of the currency in force.
Also Read- Cheque Bounce Case Acquittal in a Criminal Case
The negotiable instruments are in fact the instruments of credit being convertible on account of legality of being negotiated and are easily passable from one hand to another. To achieve the objectives of the Act, the legislature has, in its wisdom, thought it proper to make such provisions in the Act for conferring such privileges to the mercantile instruments contemplated under it and provide special penalties and procedure in case the obligations under the instruments are not discharged. The laws relating to the Act are, therefore, required to be interpreted in the light of the objects intended to be achieved by it despite there being deviations from the general law and the procedure provided for the redressal of the grievances to the litigants.
Also Read- Legally Enforceable Debt in Cheque Bounce Cases
Dashrath rupsingh Rathod v. state of Maharashtra and Anr
In this case, the Supreme Court changed the basic criteria under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is to prosecute a person who had presented the cheque which had been returned due to insufficiency of funds or if the amount exceeds the amount in the bank of the payer.Earlier, a case under Section 138 could be initiated by the holder of the cheque at his place of business or residence. This means, lakhs of cases pending in various courts across the country would witness a interstate transfer of cheque bouncing cases.
The bench said: “In this analysis, we hold that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank is located.
Also Read- Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Cases
For case specific advice, please contact Cheque Bounce Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi Balatna etc. (Punjab & Haryana).
This post is written by Minesh Joshi.
More on 99888-17966.
