Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cheque outdated in Shivaraj vs Sri. Suma R on 13 January, 2023Matching Fragments
12. The 2nd important question to be considered in this case is whether the offence under section 138 of negotiable instruments act is attracted because the cheque is returned not for the reason "funds insufficient"
but for the reason "instrument outdated - stale". A related question is whether there is any material alteration in the date of the cheque which renders the Judgment KABC0A0035242022 cheque invalid. These 2 contentions are inter-connected since it appears that the endorsement is issued by the bank as noted above on the basis that there appears to be material alteration in the date of the cheque at Ex. P1 and therefore it becomes necessary to look into the cheque at Ex. P1.
14. Insofar as the endorsement by the bank is concerned it is to be noted that even the bank has not returned the cheque for the reason of material alteration but only returned as "instrument outdated and stale". This endorsement cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, in the connected case being CC 56861/2018 which is appealed in Crl. Appeal No. 25208/2022 which is also being disposed off today, cheque of same date Judgment KABC0A0035242022 bearing No. 925651 [i.e. same series as cheque of present case] drawn on the same bank account of the same accused is returned for the reason "funds insufficient". This shows that, as on the said date, said account did not have sufficient balance to honour the cheque for ₹ 5 lakhs. The bank appears to have been influenced by the discrepancy in the date noted supra, to issue the endorsement as "instrument outdated - stale" without any justification for the same when cheque of same series presented on same day is returned as "funds insufficient". Therefore the offence under section 138 of negotiable instruments act is attracted in the present case, since, it is clear that, on said date of presentation, there was "insufficient funds" to honour the cheque.
26. Apart from this, it is contended at paragraph 12 of the grounds that the father's name of the accused is not mentioned in the legal notice. However this contention is irrelevant because as already noted supra DW 1 in his chief examination has himself admitted about the due service of the legal notice.
27. The contention regarding cheque having been returned for reason "instrument outdated - stale" raised at Paragraph 13 of the grounds of appeal memorandum is already discussed supra.