Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017
21. Even otherwise, the offences, under Section 138
of the NI Act, are based upon civil wrong. The nature of
offences, under Section 138 of the NI Act, has elaborately
been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Meters
& Instruments (P) Ltd. versus Kanchan Mehta, reported
in (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 560. Relevant paras-6
and 7 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
Goa Plast (P) Ltd vs Chico Ursula D'Souza on 20 November, 2003
7. This Court has noted that the object of the
statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of
business transactions. The provision is
necessary as in many transactions cheques
were issued merely as a device to defraud the
creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2024 21:47:47 :::CIS
13
incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to
the payee and credibility of business
transactions suffers a setback. [Goa Plast (P)
Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza, (2004) 2 SCC
.
Vinay Devanna Nayak vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd on 7 December, 2007
235, p. 248, para 26 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 499] At
the same time, it was also noted that nature of
offence under Section 138 primarily related to
a civil wrong and the 2002 Amendment
specifically made it compoundable. [Vinay
Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank
Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 305 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ)
542 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 351] The offence was
also described as "regulatory offence". The
burden of proof was on the accused in view of
presumption under Section 139 and the
standard of proof was of "preponderance of
probabilities".
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
[Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010)
11 SCC 441, p. 454, para 28 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Civ) 477 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184] The object of
the provision was described as both punitive
as well as compensatory. The intention of the
provision was to ensure that the complainant
received the amount of cheque by way of
compensation. Though proceedings under
Section 138 could not be treated as civil suits
for recovery, the scheme of the provision,
providing for punishment with imprisonment or
with fine which could extend to twice the
amount of the cheque or to both, made the
intention of law clear. The complainant could
be given not only the cheque amount but
double the amount so as to cover interest and
costs. Section 357(1)(b) CrPC provides for
payment of compensation for the loss caused
by the offence out of the fine.