Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 315 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal on 14 May, 2015
15.The defence of the accused is that the cheque in question was given as
security to the complainant. A security in common parlance would suggest
an assurance or safety. Security means "anything that makes the money
more assured in its payment or more readily recoverable and may range
from a mere personal bond or promissory note or guarantee, or even a
mere pledge of something of no intrinsic value, to a mortgage of property
from out of which money can be realised1". A security does not suggest a
non-committal attitude but has a positive overtone of faith and sureness of
payment. Similar defences taken by an accused in cases of complaints
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act that the cheque was given as a security
cheque is a misunderstood defence. In such cases, the accused has to show
that at the time the cheque in question was issued/delivered to the
complainant or presented for encashment, it was not in discharge of an
existing debt or liability. This defence which is generally taken in cases
filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been explained in decisions of
various High Courts. Reference in this regard is being made to two recent
decisions of the Hon'ble High of Delhi in Suresh Chandra Goyal v. Amit
Singhal., Crl A. No. 601 of 2015 decided on 14.05.2015 and Credential
Leasing & Credits Ltd., v. Shruti Investments & Ors., Crl. L.P. No.
558 of 2014 decided on 29.06.2015.