Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) 2001 (2) Crimes 273 (Mad) (T. Kalavathy v. Veera Exports)

(d) (1998) 94 Com Cas 549 (Guj) (Rameshchandra Rajnikant Kothari v. Gunvantlal Shivalal Shan)

(e) (1993) 78 Com Cas 797 (Bom) (Omprakash Bhojraj Maniyar v. Swati Girish Bhide)

(f) (1999) 97 Com Cas 13 : (1999 Cri LJ 1219) (G. Venkataramaniah v. Sillakollu Venkateswarlu) In the aforesaid judgments, the High Courts have observed that, if a cheque is returned on account of any structural defect i.e. any defect in its form, want of signature, improper writing of date, over writing of the amount, or erasures in the drawer's name etc., the same will not amount to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In other words, the High Courts in the aforecited judgments have held that, if the cheques are returned for any other reason, other than "insufficiency of funds and exceeds arrangement", no proceedings would lie under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. With great respect, I decline to subscribe to the aforesaid view.