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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1001

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
RAZAK P.S. – Appellant
Versus
ASHRAF AGALPADY – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.RAVISHANKAR
For the Respondents: G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY

Table of Content
1. allegation of dishonor for non-payment. (Para 2 , 3)
2. submissions on validity of cheque return. (Para 4 , 5)
3. interpretation of the term 'bank' in section 138. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the respondent/complainant alleging that the cheque which was issued by the petitioner/accused towards legally enforceable debt, when presented for realization was dishonoured for want of funds.

2. Learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, accused is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the cheque was returned by the drawer bank calling upon the complainant to contact drawer/drawee bank and present again, which clearly implies that the subject cheque was not returned by the drawee i.e, by 'the Bank'. Hence, he submits that the cheque which was returned by the drawer Bank does not constitute the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act, since the term 'the Bank' as specified in provisos A and B to Section 138 of the N.I Act refers to drawee B

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