Sec.138 of N.I.Act - "payment stopped by the drawer" - High court quashed the complaints - Apex court held that this Court has already held that instruction of "stop payment" issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act - High court committed wrong and allowed the appeals - 2015 SC msk Law Reports



 When
      the cheques were presented for collection the same were received back,
      dishonoured by bankers with the endorsement - "payment stopped by  the
      drawer".  
Notice  of  demand  dated  9.10.2006  was  issued  by   the
      complainant to the respondent no.1 but she failed to make the  payment
      of the amount mentioned in the cheques, i.e., total  Rs.1,79,86,357/-.
      Instead, she sent reply to the notice disputing liability to pay.
 On
      this, complainant filed twenty criminal  complaints  mentioned  above,
      against the respondent no.1 with  regard  to  the  offence  punishable
      under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Accused version :-
she was Re-Distribution Stockist
      (RDS) of watches manufactured by the appellant.  The business with the
      appellant was done till September, 2003 on  "cash  and  carry"  basis.
      The accused further pleaded in the petitions  filed  before  the  High
      Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that  after
      2003 the appellant company used to collect cheques towards the  amount
      covered by distinct invoices with respect to various consignments  for
      securing payment of amount covered by the invoices.
 since the cheques were given as security, as such there
      was no liability to make the  payment,  and  the  ingredients  of  the
      offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act were not made out.
High court order
The High Court accepted the plea of the accused (respondent no.1)  and
      quashed the criminal complaint cases.  Hence,  these  appeals  through
      special leave.

Apex court held that 

 in the case of Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd.
      this Court has already held that instruction of "stop payment"  issued
      to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused  liable  for  an
      offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 
Earlier also in
      Modi Cements Ltd. , this Court has  clarified
      that if a cheque is dishonoured because of  stop  payment  instruction
      even then offence punishable  under  Section  138  of  N.I.  Act  gets
      attracted.

  we find that the  High  Court  has
      committed grave error of law in quashing the criminal complaints filed
      by the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of
      the N.I. Act, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the  Code  of
      Criminal Procedure by accepting factual defences of the accused  which
      were disputed ones.
 Such defences, if taken before trial court, after
      recording of the evidence, can be better appreciated.
Allowed the appeals - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more