Dishonor of cheques marked as 'account blocked' is actionable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, publication was effected on 30/11/2013.

2. Affidavit - of - service be kept with the record.

3. Inspite of such publication, nobody appears for the opposite party.

4. Order dated 18/12/2012 passed in Case No. C - 13912/2012 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Calcutta dismissing the petition of complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 has been challenged.

5. It appears that the petition of complaint was filed against the opposite parties / accused persons in respect of dishonour of six (6) cheques issued by it which upon presentation were returned unpaid with "55 Account Blocked (Situation Covered in 21-25)".

6. Upon dishonour, notice under S.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 was sent but inspite of notice the said amount remained unpaid.

7. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 18/12/2012 dismissed the petition of complaint on the premise that there was no clarity whether the cheques were returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the materials on record clearly show that the account was blocked and inspite of notice no payment was made and hence dishonour of the cheques would fall within the ambit of S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881.

9. I have considered the materials on record. I find from the return memo it appears that the cheques were returned unpaid due to the following reason -
"55. Account Blocked (Situation Covered in 21-25)."

10. Thereafter, in spite of receipt of the notice of dishonour, the said amount was not paid. It does not appear from the materials on record that there was sufficient fund in the said account maintained by the accused persons at the time of presentation of the said cheques.

11. It is settled law that prosecution is maintainable against an accused under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 in the event the cheque is not dishonoured with the remark "account closed". [See - NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. , 1999 KHC 488 : 1999 (4) SCC 253 : AIR 1999 SC 1952 : 1999 (2) KLT SN 45 : 1999 (2) KLJ 59 : 1999 (2) KLJ NOC 17 : 1999 AIR SCW 1637 : JT 1999 (3) SC 374 : 1999 (3) SCALE 67 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 524 : 1999 (4) Supreme 378 : 1999 CriLJ 2883. In the said report, the Apex Court held that even in penal Statutes, Heydon's rule of interpretation may be resorted to suppress the mischief in a given situation. The Court held -
"10. This Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration , 1965 (1) SCR 7 : AIR 1965 SC 871 while construing S.418(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 observed:
"It is the duty of the Court in construing a Statute to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. If, therefore, giving a literal meaning to a word used by the draftsman, particularly in a penal Statute, would defeat the object of the Legislature, which is to suppress a mischief, the Court can depart from the dictionary meaning or even the popular meaning of the word and instead give it a meaning which will advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.""  (emphasis supplied)

12. Further, while interpreting the statutory provision rule dealing with penalty under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules in the case of Swantraj v. State of Maharashtra , 1975 KHC 682 : 1975 (3) SCC 322 : AIR 1974 SC 517 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 930 : 1974 (3) SCR 287 : 1974 CriLJ 472 this Court held that every legislation is a social document and judicial construction seeks to decipher the statutory