Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)L.C. Goyal vs Mrs. Suresh Joshi & Ors on 12 March, 1999
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohammed Mustaque, submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while taking cognizance of the complaint. According to him, it does not contain the necessary allegation to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act. He invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in L. C Goyal v. (Mrs.) Suresh Joshi, II (1999) SLT 512= 1999(3) Bom. C.R. (SC) 553. It was a case where the appellant denied his signature in the cheque, as according to him his signature was forged by the complainant. The cheque was bounced not on account of the fact that the signature on the cheque was not tallying with the specimen signature of the appellant kept with the Bank, but on account of insufficient funds. Therefore, the Court held that the statement that the cheque was forged is not correct. That decision has no bearing on the present facts of the case.
S. Ashok And Anr. vs Vasudevan Moosad on 11 March, 1993
5. This Court in the decision in Ashok v. Vasudevan Moosad, 1993( 1) KLT 671, held that unless charge or complaint contains the ingredients of the offence, the High Court in its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C, can quash the complaint. It was also held that to constitute the offence under Section 138 of the Act one of the ingredients is that, there was no sufficient fund in the account of the drawer to honour the cheque.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1