9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 only who signed the Cheque. Of course, it is stated that accused No. 1 was authorized to maintain and sign the joint account on which the Cheque in question was drawn. Therefore, it is clear that even though the Cheque in question pertains to a joint account of accused Nos. 1 and 2 it was signed only by accused No. 1 and not by accused No. 2. The law on the point is made very clear. When accused No. 1 alone signed the Cheque in question, even though it is stated that accused No. 2 had authorized accused No. 1 to sign the Cheque, will not make her liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is only accused No. 1 who signed the Cheque and issued in favour of the complainant and therefore, he can be prosecuted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demands made by the complainant, accused No. 1 issued the Cheque dated 26.09.2017 bearing No. 79669 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Branch Sindhanur. The Cheque in question is relating to the joint account No. 64014203920 standing in the name of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that while issuing the Cheque accused Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that even though the Cheque is signed by accused No. 1, he is authorized to sign on behalf of accused No. 2. On presentation of the Cheque, the same was dishonored as there was insufficient fund in the joint account of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The complainant got issued a legal notice informing the fact of dishonor of the Cheque and calling upon accused Nos. 1 and 2 to repay the Cheque amount. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for respondent submitted that even though accused No. 1 alone signed the cheque in question, the account is a joint account standing in the name of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, both the accused are liable to be prosecuted. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order taking cognizance and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Perused the materials on record. 10. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that would arise for my consideration is, Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against these petitioners No. 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed? 11. My answer to above the point is in 'partly affirmative' for the following: REASONS 12. Even though the trial C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legedly due from the appellant. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the appellant but certainly not under Section 138. The culpability attached to the dishonour of a cheque can, in no case except in the case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act. Even the High Court has specifically recorded the stand of the appellant that she was not the signatory of the cheque but rejected the contention that the amount was not due and payable by her solely on the ground that the trial is in progress. It is to be noted that only after issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
