Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1988
The Amending Act, 1897
N.C. Kumaresan vs Ameerappa on 11 April, 1991
Indeed
that is also the consistent view of all the High Courts
except that of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
in Kumaresan (supra) which struck a discordant note with the
observation that for the first dishonour of the cheque only
a prosecution can be launched for there cannot be more than
one cause of action for prosecution.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
S.K.D. Lakshmanan Fireworks ... vs K.V. Sivarama Krishnan And Anr. on 9 January, 1995
In the context of the above facts the question that
requires to be answered in this appeal is whether the payee
or holder (hereinafter referred to as 'payee' for the sake
of brevity) of a cheque can initiate prosecution for an
offence under Section 138 of the Act for its dishonour for
the second time, if he had not initiated such prosecution on
the earlier cause of action. The above question came up for
consideration before different High Courts in several cases,
besides those of Kumaresan and Fireworks Industries (supra);
and culling the judgments rendered therein we find that the
following three different propositions have been laid down
by one or the other High Court:
Section 4 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1