Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 56 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.R. Indira vs Dr. G. Adinarayana on 9 October, 2003
20. Since, in the present case, the admitted liability of accused got reduced on
account of part payment of Rs. 11,000/ made by him, before presentation of the
cheque, thus, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for which the cheque
was presented by the complainant, is covered under the expression "any amount of
money" U/S 138 NI Act. As such, when the accused has presented the cheque in
question for entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs despite receiving part payment of Rs.
11,000/ before presentation of the cheque, he cannot be held guilty for dishonour of
the cheque presented for Rs. 2 Lakhs. Further, since, the complainant has nowhere
disclosed even in the legal demand notice that he has received part payment of Rs.
11,000/, thus, the legal demand notice also itself becomes invalid. On this point, I
rely upon the case titled as K.R.Indira vs. Dr.G.Adinarayana, 2003 (3) JCC(NI)
273, wherein a consolidated notice was sent in respect of four cheques. Two of
which were issued to him in the name of the husband and the two were in the name of
the wife. It was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the cheque amounts were
different from the alleged loan and the demand made was not of the cheque amount
but was of the loan amount. It was held that the complainant was required to make
demand for the amount recovered by the cheque which was conspicuously absent in
the notice and, therefore, the notice was imperfect. The same would be the legal
effect when a partpayment against a cheque is made, after its issue. The amount
covered by the cheque would necessarily mean the principal amount due to the payee
Digitally signed by
AISHWARYA AISHWARYA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.10.22
16:53:26 +0530
CC NI ACT No.6035 of 2021 Nikesh Yadav Vs. Vishal Sisodia Page No. 19
after giving credit for the parpayment received by him and therefore, if the notice
does not specifically demand that particular amount, it would not be a valid notice
and would not fasten criminal liability on account of its noncompliance.
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1