Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
R. Vijayan vs Baby & Anr on 11 October, 2011
28. Point No.3: As discussed in connection with Point
Nos.1 & 2, the complainant has proved her case as to
commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act by the
accused. The punishment prescribed for the said offence is
imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or
with fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument
involved, provisions of Sec.117 of N.I. Act, cost of litigation and
the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012
(1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), etc., this court is of the
considered view that it is just and desirable to impose fine of
Rs.52,00,000/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.10,000/-
has to be remitted to the State and the remaining amount of
Rs.51,90,000/- is to be given to the complainant as
compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC and accordingly
Point No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
9. As regard to legally enforceable debt or liability, in
2010 (11) SCC 441 - (Rangappa Vs Sri. Mohan), it is held that;
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Ripudaman Singh vs Balkrishna on 13 March, 2019
24. Even otherwise, in 2019 (4) SCC 767 - (Ripudaman
Singh Vs Balkrishna), it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
though agreement to sell does not create any interest in
immovable property, however it constitutes enforceable
contract between the parties and as such any payment made
under in pursuance such agreement is duly enforceable debt or
liability for the purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act. The principle
of law laid down in this decision is aptly applicable to the
present case on hand. Even though Ex.Nos.1 and 2-
Agreements of Sale do not create any interest in the lands in
question, any payment made in pursuance of said Agreements
of Sale is duly enforceable debt or liability for purpose of
21
Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the cheque in question issued
towards refund of advance amount is towards discharge of
liability which is enforceable for the purpose of Sec.138 of N.I.
Act. Hence, the decision of Hon'ble High Court is not helpful to
the accused in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Sumpre Court.
Sri Venkatesh Bhat A vs Sri Rohidas Shenoy on 3 August, 2009
In the said decision, the
complainant who was vendor had filed complaint U/s.200 Cr.PC
on the ground that the accused who was purchaser had issued
the cheque for balance sale consideration amount under
Agreement of Sale. The accused in the said decision had
denied and disputed the execution of Agreement of Sale and it
was agreed under the Agreement that balance of sale
20
consideration should be paid at the time of execution of sale
deed. In that context, the Hon'ble High Court has held that
Criminal court should not give any finding on the execution of
Agreement of Sale and that remedy open to the complainant is
to take appropriate steps against the accused before the
competent Civil court and that there is no legally enforceable
debt. However, in the present case on hand, cheque in
question has been issued towards refund of advance amount to
the complainant who is purchaser. Moreover, the complainant
has admitted the execution of Ex.Nos.1 and 2-Agreements of
Sale. Therefore, even though there is no dispute with regard to
principles of law laid down in the said decision, the said
decision is not applicable to the present case on hand.