9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable against an accused who has been declared insolvent in insolvency proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Against an Insolvent: The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when the accused has already been declared insolvent. The petitioners argued that once declared insolvent, they are protected from prosecution for the offence under Section 138 due to the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act III of 1909, specifically Sections 17, 18, and 25, which deal with the vesting of the insolvent's property in the Official Assignee and staying of suits or legal proceedings against the insolvent. The court, however, clarified that Section 17 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act pertains to the remedy of creditors against the property of the insolvent and does not extend to criminal proceedings. The phrase "any suit or other legal proceedings" is interpreted to mean proceedings related to the property of the insolvent, not personal actions for criminal offences such as those under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings are distinct from insolvency proceedings, and the protection conferred under the insolvency law pertains to civil debts, not criminal liability. The court further supported its view by referencing previous judgments, including the decision in Kiran v. Ghansyamdas, which held that insolvency does not absolve an accused from criminal charges under Section 138. Additionally, the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Srinivasa Trading Co v. State of Andhra Pradesh reinforced the interpretation that "suit or other legal proceedings" under insolvency law does not include criminal proceedings. The court also considered the legislative intent behind Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which aims to penalize the dishonour of cheques to uphold the credibility of negotiable instruments. The provisions of Sections 139 and 140 of the Act create a presumption of liability and limit the defences available to the drawer, underscoring the legislative intent to ensure accountability for cheque dishonour. In conclusion, the court determined that the declaration of insolvency does not preclude the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The insolvency proceedings and the criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour are separate, and the latter can proceed irrespective of the former. Therefore, the petitions to quash the complaints were dismissed, affirming that the complaints are legally permissible and maintainable.
|
