Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ponda in Nikhil P Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 8 July, 2016Matching Fragments
27 On the other hand, all the applications are vehemently opposed by Mr. Abad Ponda, the learned senior advocate appearing for the complainant.
28 Mr. Ponda submitted that by virtue of Section 20 of the Act, although what was handed over to his client was a signed blank cheque, yet his client had the implied authority to fill up the signed blank cheque and present it for the purpose of encashment. He vehemently submitted that a signed blank cheque would remain a bill of exchange till the date is filled up in the said instrument.
29 Mr. Ponda submitted that the drawer of the cheque cannot absolve himself from the liability only on the ground that he ceased to be the Managing Director of the company in the year 2005. According to Mr. Ponda, although he ceased to be the Managing Director much before the cheque was filled up and presented, yet being the drawer, his HC-NIC Page 16 of 70 Created On Wed Jul 13 00:57:00 IST 2016 16 of 70 liability would continue.
30 Mr. Ponda submitted that except the few Directors for whom he gave concession to quash the complaint, all other accused could be said to be liable for the dishonour of the cheque by virtue of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.
31 Mr. Ponda submitted that there are highly disputed questions of fact which will have to be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence that would be led oral as well as documentary. He submitted that having regard to the limited scope of interference in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court may not quash the proceedings at this stage.
32 Mr. Ponda vehemently submitted that even if the cheque is issued by way of security, it would still attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He submitted that neither the Section 138 nor explanation to it suggests that the debt or other liability should be in existence on the date of issuance of the cheque, i.e. on the date of its delivery to the drawee.
33 Mr. Ponda laid much emphasis on the fact that the instrument in question assumed the character of a cheque for the first time on 25th March 2013, as till that date, the instrument remained a bill of exchange. He submitted that when the instrument was handed over in the form of a signed blank cheque, it was just a bill of exchange and assuming for the moment that at the time of handing over of such signed blank cheque, there was no existing debt or liability, still when the cheque was filled up, the liability had been crystallized, and therefore, the argument that the cheque was issued only for the purpose of security should fail.