9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied the cheque amount. The problem has arisen because though figure in numerical has been clearly written as Rs. 4,65,000/-, but unfortunately while writing in words it was written as "Rs. Four lac sixty five". It is quite evident that though after word Sixty Five there has been inadvertence in not mentioning the word "thousand". Prima facie, the error appears to be inadvertence rather than depicting different amounts. Though it is correct that Section 18 of NI Act, states that when there is a discrepancy in the amount of cheque as mentioned in figures and words, the words shall prevail. However, as has already been mentioned above, such discrepancy did not weigh with the Bank which clearly stated in the Return Memo that the cheque amount was Rs. 4,65,000/-. Likewise, overwriting of the date on the cheque, has not been considered as a material interpolation meriting dishonour of the cheque. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on technical ground, without putting the parties to trial and without affording opportunity to prove their respective cases. Conclusion - The error in writing the correct figure in wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque has to be deemed for Rs. 4,00,065/-, but in the Demand Notice dated 27.01.2018 the cheque amount has been stated as Rs. 4,65,000/-. The law mandates that the Statutory Notice must be for the exact amount of the cheque. Therefore, the Legal Notice dated 27.01.2018 for a demand of Rs. 4,65,000/- did not meet the requirement of law under Section 138/142 of NI Act and consequentially, Respondent No. 2-Sonu Rana was entitled to be discharged. 5. The learned MM vide Order dated 24.09.2018 observed that a discrepancy in the words and figures on the cheque was a matter of trial since the legal Demand Notice specifically gave the cheque amount as Rs. 4,65,000/-; what amount was intended at the time of issuance of cheque could be determined only by way of trial and Notice was framed against Respondent No. 2. 6. However, the learned ASJ vide Order dated 17.02.2021 observed that the amount of the cheque in terms of Section 18 of NI Act has to be considered as Rs. 4,00,065/-, while the cheque was for amount of Rs. 4,65,000/-. There was a patent ambiguity and the Complainant was unable to establish as to what amount had to be paid by the accused under the cheque. Consequently, the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption under Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Furthermore, merely because there was a difference in the amount of cheque specified in words and figures, would not make a cheque invalid in view of Section 18 of NI Act. Also, divergence of the two figures, one appearing on the cheque and the other in the Demand Notice, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 12. Reliance has also been placed on N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasnair 2009 CRL.L.J. 1213 :2011 ACD and Devi Tyres v. Nawab Jan 2001 AIR-KANT. H.C.R wherein it was observed that discrepancy in the amount as mentioned in the cheque and the Demand Notice, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 13. Further reference is made to Section 118 (a) of the NI Act which provides that until the contrary is proved, it will be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and every instrument that has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Section 139 of the Act lays down that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved. 14. Reliance has been placed on decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 138 B NI Act valid. 22. Judical Committee in Dyke Vs. Elliot (1872) LR 4 AC 184, wherein it was observed that while interpreting penal statutes, which are required to be construed strictly, the Courts must see that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used but at the same time must also consider if the things are within the spirit of the enactment. Where the thing is brought within the spirit, there a penal enactment is to be construed like any other instrument according to fair common sense meaning of the language used and Court is not to find or make any doubt or ambiguity in the language of the penal Statute where such doubt or ambiguity would clearly not to be found or made in the same language and any other instrument. 23. The aforesaid case was quoted with approval in the case of M. Naryayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerla AIR 1963 SC 1116 while considering the rule of construction o a penal provision. 24. The aforesaid Judgment was referred to in the case of Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K. Churiwal & Anr., I (2000) SLT 605 wherein it is observed that while reading Section 138 as a whole, common sense must be applied to ascertain whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crepancy in the amount of cheque as mentioned in figures and words, the words shall prevail. However, as has already been mentioned above, such discrepancy did not weigh with the Bank which clearly stated in the Return Memo that the cheque amount was Rs. 4,65,000/-. Likewise, overwriting of the date on the cheque, has not been considered as a material interpolation meriting dishonour of the cheque. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on technical ground, without putting the parties to trial and without affording opportunity to prove their respective cases. 29. The error in writing the correct figure in words, would not at this stage, make the cheque invalid especially when no Reply has been given by Respondent No. 2 to the Legal Notice to refute his liability and has not questioned the Notice making a demand of Rs. 4,65,000/-. The Complaint is sought to be defeated on the technical ground of inadvertent error in mentioning the correct figure of the cheque in words, which cannot be a justiciable ground for discharge, but merits a Trial. 30. It is, therefore, held that the learned ASJ fell in error in discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
