SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 521

A.HARIPRASAD
Anagha Prasad – Appellant
Versus
M. C. Abu – Respondent


Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:P. Venugopal (1086/92), T.J. Maria Goretti, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, P. Samsudin, Advocate, R2, Justin Jacob, Public Prosecutor.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - A minor cannot be personally held liable under civil law for a cheque drawn, indorsed, delivered or negotiated by him; contract with a minor is void. (!) (!) (!) - Section 26 NI Act protects a minor drawing/indorsing/negotiating a negotiable instrument, but such instrument binds all parties except the minor. (!) (!) (!) - For offences under Section 138 NI Act, the essential ingredient is a cheque drawn to discharge a debt or liability, and the instrument must bind the drawer; post-dated cheques and those drawn during minority raise specific issues about liability. (!) (!) (!) - A quondam minor (who becomes major by the time of dishonour) may have different considerations depending on whether the instrument was drawn during minority; the court held that the offence cannot be attracted if the cheque was drawn during minority. (!) (!) - The court quashed the complaints against the minor and held the petitions allowed, with quashing of proceedings. (!) - The liability of minor in cases of necessaries and other sections (e.g., Section 68, Contract Act) is addressed to the extent of reimbursement from the property of the minor, not personal liability. (!) (!)

How to determine whether a cheque drawn by a person during minority can attract an offence under Section 138 NI Act?

What is the effect of post-dated cheques drawn by a minor on criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act?

What are the consequences for prosecutions if a quondam minor draws a cheque during minority and the cheque is dishonoured?


Order

1. Common questions of fact and law arise in these three cases. Hence, they are heard together and disposed by this common order.

2. Legal puzzles arising herein for determination are as follows:

i. Whether dishonour of a cheque, drawn by a person during minority for discharging a debt or liability towards another, will invite an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Rs.

ii. Does it make any difference if the cheque was a post-dated one and its dishonour takes place after the quondam minor attained majority Rs.

3. In order to find out answers to these questions, we shall consider the skeletal facts in these cases. Petitioner in these cases are the accused in three different private complaints filed by the 1st respondent before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur. In all the three complaints, the offence alleged against the petitioner is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "the NI Act"). 1st respondent/complainant is the Managing Partner of a firm, conducting a business by name Persian Jewellery, Nilambur. Petitioner's mother was an employee in the said firm. While so, the petitioner, her mother















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top