Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (10) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are as follows : Appellant-Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta (in Crl. A. No. 1137/2001) and his wife, Smt. K.R. Indira, (appellant in Crl. A. No. 1136/2001) filed complaints alleging that the respondent-Dr. G. Adinarayana, a friend of the appellant Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta acted in a manner unbecoming of a friend. In essence, two doctors were trying to use instrument in fighting out a bitter legal battle and not trying to save a person fighting for life. Three separate complaints were filed alleging that loans were advanced by the appellants to the respondent for which he executed pronotes with a view to ensure repayment of loans with interest. Four cheques were issued, two in the name of the husband and two in the name of the wife. As the cheq .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that common notice was not in accordance with law and the essential ingredients to bring in application of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the Act were not there. It was held that when separate cheques were allegedly issued, complainants were different and related to allegedly different loan transactions, a common notice is not contemplated. 5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the essence of the notice is to be seen and a bare reading of the notice, even though it is a consolidated one, shows that the requirements of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the Act are met, it is sufficient and both the trial Court and the High Court have failed to consider this aspect. It was submit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shed with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a)****** (b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he complaint is filed the legal liability under section 138 ceases to be operative and for the recovery of other demands such as compensation, costs, interests etc. separate proceedings would lie. If in a notice any other sum is indicated in addition to the amount covered by the cheque, that does not invalidate the notice. 10. The offence under section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) drawing of the cheque by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker, for payment to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole/part any debt or liability, (2) presentation of the cheque by the payee or the ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to it, in the form of expenses incurred for clearance and notice charges were also made did not vitiate the notice. In a given case if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was a consolidated notice, and/or that further demands in addition to the statutorily envisaged demand was also found to have been made may not invalidate the same. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. However, according to the respondent, the notice in question is not separable in that way and that there was no specific demand made for payment of the amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates