9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.4.1999. The complainant presented the cheque on 21.10.1999 for encashment. But, the said cheque was returned on 2.11.1999 with the endorsement insufficiency of funds and the same was intimated by the Bank on 6.11.1999. It is mentioned in the complaint that the cheque in question was issued when the balance due from the accused was ₹ 1,01,574/-, since the excess amount could be for the future purchase. After dishonour, the complainant issued a notice to the accused on 17.11.1999. On receipt of notice, the petitioner sent a reply admitting the issuance of the cheque, but stating some false allegations. Therefore, the complainant had filed the complaint. 3. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has raised the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that whether the cheque was given as security or towards discharge of liability is a question to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of trial. Therefore, the point regarding issuance of cheque as security cannot be urged at this stage before this Court. 8. Another point raised by the Counsel for the petitioner regarding absence of existing liability in respect of the entire cheque amount requires consideration. 9. It is true that the complainant in the complaint would say that the cheque was issued for ₹ 1,50,000/-, even though the liability as on the date of issuance of cheque was of ₹ 1,01,574/-. There is no dispute in the fact that the statutory notice was issued after dishonour claiming only ₹ 1,01,57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, consequently, complainant would be entitled to approach the Court by filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 13. In a similar situation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Engineering Corporation v. T.C.I. Finance Ltd., I (2000) CCR 113=1999 (3) Crimes 504, would hold that the portion of the amount either more than the cheque amount or less than the cheque amount would not make either the notice or the complaint invalid, in view of the fact that nonpayment of the balance amount, though it is a portion of the cheque amount, despite receipt of notice would definitely create a cause of action under Section 138(1)(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. Therefore, this ground raised by the Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
