ACERADOS Y CARRIL BICI 05.01 m3 ZAHORRA ARTIFICIAL EN BASE

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice sent on 23.5.1995 - `Garage of drawer found closed' and postal endorsement dt.31.5.1995 - Complaint filed on 9.6.1995 - Complainant examined on 7.9.1995 - Quashing of complaint on ground that it was premature, not justified - Magistrate was fully competent to take cognizance after the expiry of 15 days. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA

CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803

#11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre-mature complaint - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days - Magistrate can take cognizance after expiry of 15 days of notice. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803

#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of payment of cheque - Not necessary to mention amount of dishonoured cheque - Amount of cheque can safely be

presumed to be known to drawer. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609

#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque due to structural defects i.e. any defect in its form, want of signature, date not properly written, figure of the amount has been overwritten or erasures in the drawer's name etc. - S.138 is not attracted - This section is also not attracted if drawer refuses to replace the cheque. (Babulal Nainmal Jain Vs Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0005 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0339 : 1998(3) MAH LJ 0762 : 1998(4) ALLMR 0287 : 1998 CRI LJ 4750 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused appeared in pursuance to the summons - There is no need to call upon the accused to furnish security for his enlargement.

#15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - On a cheque being dishonoured once, if the payee is asked to present the cheque again, and still the cheque is not cashed then the payee would be entitled to give to the drawer of cheque a notice under Section 138 after the subsequent presentation of cheque and the limitation would start running not from the date when the cheque was dishonoured for the first time but from the date it was dishonoured

subsequently. (M/s Nagdev Sons Vs State of U.P.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 561

(ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) (D.B.) 0392 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0151 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0483 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0201 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0518 : 1999 (1) CCR 0064

#16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at a place where the cheque was drawn, or a place where the cheque was presented, or a place where the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period and at a place where the drawer failed to make the

payment. (Sanjai Makkar & Ors. Vs Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (Haryana) & Ors.),

1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0666 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0528 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0493 : 1999 (2) CCR 0567

#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice to company is sufficient compliance - No separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint, before initiating proceedings under the Act. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A.P.)

#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Four cheques - Composite notice to complainant for all the four cheques - Not prohibited under S.138 of the Act when parties are same and when cheques are bounced on the same day - No prejudice is caused to accused by issuing such a notice - Complaint not liable to be quashed. (Hindustan Power Controls Vs Swarna Systems), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0028 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0213 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0622

#19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Giving the date of cause of action in the complaint is not mandatory - Date of service of notice is a question of fact which can be decided only after recording evidence. (Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR

(ALLAHABAD) 0268 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0525 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Closure of account' - Dishonour of cheque on account of closure of account before or after issuing a cheque - It means insufficiency of funds - Offence u/s 138 is committed. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.),

1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219

#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Notice given on 26.3.1998 - Cause of action arose on 11.4.1998 - Complaint filed on 8.5.1998 - Not barred by limitation. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP.

CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219

#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - No averment in complaint that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability - Provisions of S.138 not attracted and complaint is not maintainable - No averment attracting provisions of S.420 IPC and even if there is any such averment offence thereunder unsustainable - Complaint quashed. (Vempati Balaji & Ors. Vs D.Vijaya Gopala Reddi & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0064 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0184

#23: ORISSA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - Complaint filed on 13th day from date of refusal to receive notice - In case of refusal to receive notice date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice - If the complaint is filed before expiry of the period of 15 days as provided in Clause (c) to the proviso of S.138 then cognizance of the offence cannot be taken - Order of cognizance quashed. (Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (ORISSA)

#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in the default - Preliminary evidence recorded and case fixed for arguments - Complainant not appearing - Magistrate not to dismiss the complaint in default but should consider the evidence and pass an order either to summon the accused or dismiss it on merits. (Ajay Khurana Vs M/s Anil Cloth House), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0391 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0232 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0196

#25: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 92, 138-- - A firm having current account with a Bank - Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm - Cheques

subsequently dishonoured/lost - Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm - Firm lost its remedy to recover the amount from owner - Action of bank not lawful. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI)

#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director - Held, without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.)

#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or liability - Post dated cheque - On the date of issuing cheque there was no existing enforceable debt or liability - No offence. (Swastik

Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.)

#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partners - No allegation that respondents No.3 & 4 were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help the complainant - If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No.3 & 4 - Held, Magistrate is not right in summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes of law. (Tara Chand & Ors. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562

#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Should be filed within one month from the date of accrual of cause of action - S.5 Limitation Act is not applicable. (K.Devadas Shetty Vs Dr.J.R.Pais), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0665 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0161 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0192 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0605 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0286 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0290 : 1998 (2) CCR 0080 : ILR 1997 KANT 2883 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0037

#6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Civil and criminal liability - It is open to the aggrieved party to resort to either of the two or both - Pendency of dispute before civil Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to take cognizance of offence and issue process pursuant thereto. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT)

#7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice served on 1.9.1992 - Complaint filed on 16.9.1992 - Held, complaint is not premature. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat), 1998(3)

CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT) #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4)

CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532

#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times during period of its validity - Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice - Each presentation and

dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right - Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s 138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91

#10: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Account closed prior to the date written on the cheque - Offence is committed - In the instant case cheque drawn on 5.9.1990 bearing the date 5.1.1991 - Account closed on 17.12.90 - Cheque presented for collection and dishonoured on account of `Account closed' - Held, provisions of S.138 are attracted. (Krishnan Nair Vs Jaseentha), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0205