PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Mahesh Goyal
Versus
S.K.Sharma
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14940 of 1995,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 21, 1997
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE - APPLICABILITY TO SELF-DRAWN CHEQUES - A self-drawn cheque is not excluded from the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which penalizes the dishonour of cheques.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Mahesh Goyal, issued a self-drawn cheque to the respondent, S. K. Sharma, in discharge of a debt. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the petitioner challenged the complaint and the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not limited to cheques drawn in the name of a third person. It applies to all cheques drawn by a person from an account maintained by him, regardless of whether the cheque is drawn in his own name or in the name of a third person.
Issues: Whether Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to self-drawn cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and concluded that it does not require the cheque to be drawn in the name of another person. The section applies to all cheques drawn by a person from an account maintained by him, irrespective of the payee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition and upheld the complaint and summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate.
1. This is a petition filed by Mahesh Goyal (hereinafter described as the petitioner) for quashing the complaint filed by respondent S. K. Sharma and the summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending, that the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 6,200/- from the respondent. He had promised to return the same on demand. In discharge of the debt, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 1-6-1994 drawn in Indian Overseas Bank. The respondent presented the cheque to Punjab National Bank, but in turn sent it to the Indian Overseas Bank, Ambala Cantt. the cheque was returned with the remarks not arranged for. Since the cheque was dishonoured, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner. The money was not paid within the stipulated time. Hence the complaint was filed. Learned Judicial Magistrate had summoned the petitioner as an accused vide his order dated 10-3-1995.
3. The petitioner contends that in the facts of the case, the provisions of S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted. It was self drawn cheque. In such like cheques which were drawn in own name, S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted and, therefore, the complaint and the order summoning the petitioner should be quashed.
4. Needless to say that in the reply filed the said petition has been contested. The respondents pleaded case was that the petitioner on behalf of his wife is running chit fund at Ambala in the name and style of Anshul Chits. The petitioner had issued different cheques to the respondent. All of them had been dishonoured. Two complaints were filed at Dhuri. It was denied that in case when cheque is drawn to self, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted.
5. The short argument advanced at the time of arguments and on behalf of the petitioner was that the cheque was drawn to self and in such like case when it was not addressed to any third person to whom the payment was due, S. 138 is not to be attracted.
6. To appreciate the said contention, reference can well be made to the provisions of S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been added by virtue of amending Act w.e.f. 5-9-1988. It reads as under :-
"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the account - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing, to the credit of that account is insufficient 20 honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both :Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless -(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier:(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.Explanation-For the purposes of this Section, "debt or ot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.