Skip to main content

Cheque drawn and issued by a third party comes within purview of Section 138 of NI Act

In Vijuna V.K. Vs. Mithun K. and Ors., appeal was filed before the Kerala High Court against the order of the trial court sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment of 3 months and a fine of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs.

The complaint contended that he had provided a loan of Rs. 4.5 lakhs to the husband of the accused of which he returned only Rs. 1 Lakh. The accused undertook the liability of her husband for the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and issued a cheque  for that amount to the complainant in discharge of the liability. An agreement had also been executed in relation to the transaction. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused.

The plea of the accused is that she had not issued cheque to the complainant but the complainant had misused the cheque which he had got from her husband.

On appeal, the Kerala High Court decided that it is true that the accused had issued the cheque to the complainant not in discharge of any amount due from her to the complainant. What is proved is that she had drawn and delivered the cheque to the complainant in discharge of the liability of her husband to the complainant. The fact, that the accused had drawn and delivered the cheque to the complainant in discharge of the amount due from her husband to the complainant and not in discharge of any amount due from herself, does not mean that the offence under Section 138 of the Act is not attracted. Cheque drawn and issued by a person to the complainant, in discharge of the debt owed by another person to the complainant, comes within the purview of Section 138 of the Act (See Anil Sachar v. M/s. Sree Nath Spinners: MANU/SC/0838/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 2751, Alexander v. Joseph Chacko: MANU/KE/0072/1993 : 1993 (2) KLT 326, Komalam v. Mohanakumar: MANU/KE/0504/2008 : 2009 (3) KHC 269 : 2009 (3) KLT 263, Gopi v. Sudarshanan: 2002 KHC 4793 : 2002 (2) KLT 606 and Alex P. Oommen v. K.S.F.D.C. : MANU/KE/2017/2012 : 2012 (4) KHC 126).

The High Court also rejected the contention of the accused that the complainant had not sent the statutory notice to the accused in her correct address. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. When the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act stands complied with. Where the payee dispatches the notice by registered post with correct address of the drawer of the cheque, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would be attracted.

On a query made by this Court, whether the accused had received summons in the case from the trial court with a copy of the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner answered in the affirmative. In C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed: MANU/SC/2263/2007 : (2007) 6 SCC 555, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".

The court also found no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice does not contain particulars of the transaction and therefore, it is defective. The notice of demand for payment of the amount of the cheque need not state the nature of the liability or particulars of the transaction.

The High court therefore decided that there is no fault in the order of the trial court and that the appellate court had by reducing the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court had already shown the maximum possible leniency.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more