Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Anil Kumar Sawhney vs Gulshan Rai on 11 October, 1993
16. To sum up, in the case at hand, admittedly the cheque
was given for consideration. Whether it was for timely supply
of the goods as claimed by the petitioner or for guaranteeing
the erection, commissioning and performance of the plant
machinery as allegedly claimed by the complainant
respondent, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be
looked into at this stage. The respondent has tried to encash
that cheque against consideration which, according to the
respondent, was due to it. In addition, Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, also creates a presumption
in favour of the complainant. Under the circumstances, the
onus for proving otherwise lies on the petitioners and can only
Crl.M.C. No.2543/2008 Page 12 of 13
be discharged at the trial. Furthermore, as discussed above,
merely because the cheque in question was undated at the
time it was handed over does not mean that it was given
without consideration. There is also nothing in law to
presume that a cheque, which happens to be a negotiable
instrument, must be deemed to have been drawn on the date
the undated cheque was handed over. On the contrary, as per
the ratio of Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs. Gulshan Rai (supra),
the cheque is deemed to be drawn on the date mentioned on
the cheque. Lastly, the notice under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, issued by the respondent, was
admittedly received by the petitioners but they did not bother
to reply.
Veer Prakash Sharma vs Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr on 1 August, 2007
12. Similarly, in Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar
Agarwal, (2007) 7 SCC 373, the Supreme Court held that:
N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007
In N. Rangachari Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
(2007) 5 SCC 108, the Apex Court was of the view that if, on
reading the complaint as a whole, all the elements of the
offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act are made out, then any pleas put forward by
the appellant and the defences sought to be put forward by
the accused, can only be looked into after the trial is
concluded.
M.N. Damani vs S.K. Sinha And Others on 2 May, 2001
In M.N. Damani Vs. S.K. Sinha and Others (2001) 5
SCC 156, the Supreme Court held that for deciding whether
the criminal proceedings should be quashed or not "two
aspects are to be satisfied: (1) whether the uncontroverted
allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish
the offence, and (2) whether it is expedient and in the interest
of justice to permit a prosecution to continue." It was thus
held that where a prima facie case is made out on reading the
allegations in the complaint, and there is nothing to indicate
that it is not expedient and in the interest of justice to permit
the prosecution to continue, the summons issued by the
magistrate were wrongly quashed by the Single Judge of the
High Court.
M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998
15. It is noteworthy that in the instant case, notice of
demand sent by the complainant in terms of Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, did not elicit any response.
Crl.M.C. No.2543/2008 Page 11 of 13
Furthermore, even before this Court, counsel for the
petitioners has not explained why his clients failed to make
any specific demand in writing for return of the cheque since,
according to them, its purpose had already been served, and
the contract for which the cheque was issued, was over.
Furthermore, as held by the Supreme Court in Modi Cements
Ltd. Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, AIR 1998 SC 1057, once a
cheque is issued by the drawer, a presumption under Section
139 must follow, and merely because the drawer thereafter
issues a notice to the bank for stoppage of payment, it will not
preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee
or the holder of the cheque in due course.