Back
R.BASANT, M.C.HARI RANI
S. Devan, Cine Artist – Appellant
Versus
C. Krishna Menon – Respondent
Does a cheque cease to be a cheque if the drawer disputes its execution or signature? What is the court's jurisdiction to ascertain the real reason for a cheque's dishonour despite the banker's endorsement? What is the impact of a banker's endorsement stating "signature differs" on a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?
Key Points: - The court upheld the verdicts of guilt and convictions of the petitioner in all four cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) . - The court found that the cheques were signed, executed, and handed over by the accused to the complainant for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability (!) (!) . - The court held that a cheque does not cease to be a cheque merely because the drawer disputes its execution or signature (!) (!) (!) . - The court asserted its jurisdictional competence to ascertain the real reason for the dishonour of a cheque, notwithstanding the banker's purported reasons (!) (!) (!) . - The court ruled that an obliging banker's endorsement, including "signature differs," does not make the banker the final arbiter of culpability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) . - The court found that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted by the accused (!) . - The court modified the sentence, setting aside the substantive sentences of imprisonment and enhancing the fine amount (!) (!) . - The court directed that a significant portion of the realized fine be released to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. (!) . - The court found no conflict between the decisions in Rejikumar v. Sukumaran and M.I. Kumaran v. Abdul Karim & Anr. (!) (!) . - The court held that the complainant's allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC in the complaint does not militate against the maintainability of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (!) [15000223530037].
Basant, J.
i) Does a cheque cease to be a cheque merely because the drawer raises a dispute about the execution of the cheque and the genuineness of the signature in the cheque?
ii) Does it cease to be a cheque when a banker constrained to dishonour the cheque of a valued customer instead of returning it with the endorsement that there is no sufficient funds includes the reason that the signature differs?
iii) Is an obliging banker making such an endorsement to be reckoned as the final arbiter of culpability in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
iv) Does not the court have jurisdictional competence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ascertain the real reason for the dishonour of the cheque notwithstanding the purported reasons stated by the Banker ?
v) Does the decision in Thomas Varghese v. P.Jerome [1992 CRI.L.J.380] require or warrant reconsideration?
vi) Is there a conflict between the decision in Rejikumar v. Sukumaran [2002 KHC 409] and the decision in M.I. Kumaran v. Abdul Karim and another, [2006(1)K.L.D.(Cri)811].
2. These interesting questions arise for consideration in this re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
