9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otiable Instruments Act (for short `N.I. Act') by respondent No.2 M/s Iron Cementics (India) Pvt. Ltd for dishonour of three cheques for `25 lakhs each purportedly issued by him. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner is alleged to be the Managing Director of M/s. Mother India Logistics Minerals Pvt. Ltd. dealing in the business of supply of machinery and spare parts. 3. Respondent No.2 company placed an order for supply of machinery and spare parts on the company of petitioner and gave a cheque of `90 lakhs towards advance payment. The company of the petitioner, however, failed to deliver the machinery/spare parts and on this, the Managing Director of petitioner company was app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No.2, therefore, served the petitioner as well as his company with notices of demand under Section 138 N.I. Act in respect of above three cheques, but the petitioner and his company failed to make payment. This resulted in the respondent No.2 filing three separate complaints on the basis of above said three dishonoured cheques of `25 lakhs each being complaint case No.1594/2009, 3633/2007 and 3622/2007. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, on consideration of the complaint and the affidavit evidence of the complainant, summoned the petitioner for undergoing trial in the aforesaid three complaints. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above referred three revision petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70 lakhs earlier issued by the petitioner's company and those three cheques were supposed to be presented in the event of the dishonour of cheque of `70 lakhs. Learned counsel contended that since the cheque of `70 lakhs was dishonoured, the respondent had every right to present the above three cheques for encashment as an assurance by the petitioner and since those cheques were dishonoured, the respondent was well within his right to file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before adverting to the submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to have a look on Section 138 N.I. Act, which reads as under: 138. Dishonour of cheque for ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability]. 9. Plain reading of the above provision of law shows that criminal liability under Section 138 N.I. Act is attracted only if the dishonoured cheque was issued for the discharge in whole or in part of any existing debt or liability. The Section does not apply to a cheque issued to meet future liability which may arise on happening of some contingency. Thus, it is clear that a post-dated cheque, if issued for discharge of a debt due, in the event of dishonour, would attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act but a cheque iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
