Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)Msr Leathers vs S. Palaniappan And Anr on 26 September, 2012
11. However, in my considered opinion, reliance placed on this
judgment is misconceived on two counts. Firstly, it is required to be
noticed that in paras 4 and 5 of the complaint, the respondent-
complainant has mentioned that the cheque was presented again on
an assurance given by the petitioner, while this was not the case in
Vanitha's case (supra) and additionally this scenario is specifically
covered by the reasoning given in MSR's case (supra).
M/S New India Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Bihar on 26 November, 1962
"15. The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the
two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be
interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful
agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the
expression "amount of money ...... is insufficient" appearing in
Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such
"as account closed", "payment stopped", "referred to the drawer" are
only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the
ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the
first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the
ground that the "signatures do not match" or that the "image is not
found", which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match
the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the
meaning of Section 138 of the Act. This Court has in the decisions
referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising
out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the
drawers of the cheques which would inevitably result in the
dishonour of the cheque issued by them. For instance this Court has
held that if after issue of the cheque the drawer closes the account it
must be presumed that the amount in the account was nil hence
insufficient to meet the demand of the cheque. A similar result can
be brought about by the drawer changing his specimen signature
given to the bank or in the case of a company by the company
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2023 03:21:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086315
2023:PHHC:086315
CRM-M-14104-2018 --8--
M/S Laxmi Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 27 November, 2012
13. Similarly in "M/s. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat",
reported as 2013 (1) RCR 260 , while interpreting Section 138 of the
1881 Act, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that so long any change is
brought about with a view to preventing the cheque being honoured,
the dishonour would become an offence under Section 138 subject to
other conditions prescribed being satisfied. Relevant para 15 thereof
is reproduced hereunder:-
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
D.V.Vanitha vs S.L.Vezhavendhan on 23 February, 2022
11. However, in my considered opinion, reliance placed on this
judgment is misconceived on two counts. Firstly, it is required to be
noticed that in paras 4 and 5 of the complaint, the respondent-
complainant has mentioned that the cheque was presented again on
an assurance given by the petitioner, while this was not the case in
Vanitha's case (supra) and additionally this scenario is specifically
covered by the reasoning given in MSR's case (supra).
1