9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding dishonor of cheques due to closed accounts. 3. Application of legal principles in cases of bounced cheques and penal liability. 4. Analysis of judicial precedents regarding the closure of accounts in relation to Section 138 of the Act. 5. Determining the date of drawing a post-dated cheque and its impact on the offense under Section 138. 6. Jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash a complaint filed by his wife under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging an offense related to a bounced cheque. The petitioner argued that the offense could not be established as there was no account in the drawee bank when the cheque was presented for encashment. 2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 138, emphasizing that for the offense to apply, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the drawer with the bank. Closure of the account before presenting the cheque results in insufficiency of funds, fulfilling the conditions for penal liability under the Act. 3. The court highlights that the objective of the legislation was to enhance the acceptability of cheques for settlements. Closing the account after issuing a cheque to evade liability defeats this purpose and constitutes an offense under Section 138. 4. Judicial precedents from the Karnataka and Madras High Courts were discussed, where differing views were expressed on whether the closure of an account falls within the ambit of Section 138. The judgment rejects these views, asserting that closing the account leads to insufficient funds, thus attracting penal consequences. 5. The judgment addresses the issue of the date of drawing a post-dated cheque. It clarifies that the presumption of the date of drawing being the date on the cheque can be rebutted. In this case, both parties admitted the cheque was issued earlier, making the date of drawing crucial in determining liability. 6. Lastly, the petitioner raised a jurisdictional challenge, which the court directed to be addressed in the lower court. The judgment concludes with observations on the disposal of the criminal miscellaneous case, emphasizing the need to establish the account's status at the time of drawing the cheque. Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles surrounding bounced cheques, closure of accounts, and the application of Section 138 of the Act, ensuring clarity on the conditions for penal liability and the significance of the date of drawing in such cases.
|
