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